Brian, if this definition is more useful, then why isn't that license to take over the term? More specifically, how can there be any argument on the basis of some canonical definition, while the consensus seems that we really don't know the answer yet?
It seems akin to arguing that aerodynamics isn't an appropriate basis for the definition of 'flight', just because a preconceived notion of flight includes the motion of the planets as well as that of the birds, even though the mechanisms turn out to be very different.
Brian, if this definition is more useful, then why isn't that license to take over the term? More specifically, how can there be any argument on the basis of some canonical definition, while the consensus seems that we really don't know the answer yet?
It seems akin to arguing that aerodynamics isn't an appropriate basis for the definition of 'flight', just because a preconceived notion of flight includes the motion of the planets as well as that of the birds, even though the mechanisms turn out to be very different.