Any adequate definition of life must be extensionally correct—applying to all and only living things—and NASA's definition fails this criterion by excluding non-reproducing individuals.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Criterion (plural: criteria)(In Buddhist logic, valid reasons had to satisfy multiple criteria; this statement mentions the first one): A standard or requirement that something must meet to count as valid or true.
Definition (in philosophy)(Haslanger's philosophical definition of gender): An attempt to explain what something really is by listing its essential characteristics or the conditions that make it count as that thing.
Extensionally correct(as used in logic): True when you look at the actual results or outcomes, even if the reasoning behind it isn't quite right.
NASA's definition (of life)(as a scientific/institutional reference): NASA's official explanation of what counts as life, which generally focuses on self-replicating systems that can evolve—a definition that causes the problem discussed in this statement.

Based on where you are in your exploration