User blog comment:BlueFrackle/Alternative Forms of Life/@comment-4018747-20130511225020

If we must decide between anthropocentricity and objectivity, I believe that mild anthropocentricty wins every time.

While, yes, it is implied in the category title that these races have alternative chemistry to what we are familiar with, we have nothing else to compare to. Humans are what we are familiar with. I am still supportive of the "Alternative Life" category, and am also supportive of "Non-Chemical Life". The second is perhaps the more objective and sensible choice, but I still prefer Alternative, and BlueFrackle detailed this in his blog; is it reasonable to assume that the average person understands what chemistry really is, on an atomic level? I don't believe so.

I think, to service our readers (most of which, mind you, probably don't care much about why a certain category possess a less-than-objective name) we must choose the simpler term and sarcifice some objectivity for it. A similar problem resides with renaming it "Supernatual Forms of Life" or something akin to it; the media has ruined people's perceptions of what that is, and it still seems as anthropocentric if not more so as "Alternative".

In regards to biochemistry, my favourite option is "indeterminate". I feel it provides the utmost amount of objectivity while not sacrificing public understanding, and that's what we're really here to do, isn't it; service the public.

Thank you for taking the time to create this blog, BlueFrackle. I'm happy to discuss further in depth any concerns by others with my standings or other issues. If it comes down to it, we might as well just have a simple vote if we can't get a consensus.