Summations Only

In the last few years on this board, I've noticed several people come up with the sweeping statement that science doesn't ask (or answer) "why" questions. I've also come across this claim occasionally elsewhere on the internet. The origin of this idea may be in another statement I've seen a few times: "Science answers the "how" questions and religion answers the "why" questions."Another related claim was made by an EvC member recently:

quote:

---

"The proper use of "why" is to answer questions of purpose."

---

Message 143Although answering questions of purpose is certainly one use of "why", it was news to me that it is "the proper use". Suddenly, I was being informed that writers of books, fiction and non-fiction, were all frequently using the word "why" improperly. That newspapers, magazines and other periodicals were all regularly using the word improperly. It appears that all of us in our day to day speech are often using the word improperly, as were past generations of English speakers. And, most relevant to this thread, scientists are regularly using the word improperly. Dictionaries also appear to be wrong when they describe usages that don't imply purpose.So, this seems to me to be an extraordinary claim.It's an extraordinary claim because words are sounds, and what determines their "proper use" is merely how they are actually used in a language at any given point in its history. Good dictionaries, like the Oxford English Dictionary, caught on to this in the nineteenth century, and realised that defining words and updating definitions was a matter of systematically studying how words were being used. This is because the evolution of language does not only mean the addition and subtraction of terms, but also changes in the meanings of words, or new meanings coming in alongside old ones.It's a short cut to look in a dictionary for definitions which, if the research has been done well, should be good. In these days of the internet, it's also much easier than it was in the past for us to do our own research, and the best established current uses of any given word should be found by googling around. So, if we're disputing terms here on EvC, we have a useful tool.Sometimes how and why questions can be nearly interchangeable. The cause of something or reason behind something (largely the territory or why or what) can be a process (largely how territory). So there can be three valid ways or more to ask pretty much the same question. But on other occasions, there can be significant differences.For example, we could ask: Why do birds singThis is liable to produce "reason" answers. They sing to communicate. More specifically they mark territory, make mating calls etc. That's why they sing.Then we could ask: How do birds sing?That's liable to produce "process" answers. Physical explanations of how the birds make the noises that they communicate with.I hope you'll all agree that both of the above are legitimate scientific questions.So, does anyone want to defend any or all of the following claims:(1) Science doesn't ask/answer "why" questions(2) The proper use of "why" is to answer questions of purpose.(3) Science answers the "how" questions and religion answers the "why" questions."The reason for the thread is that I think that the claims above are wrong, and that there's a dubious meme going around the internet promoting the statements. I don't want to see this virus infecting EvC. I think we should pride ourselves here on being able to understand the breadth of the uses of an important word in our language. Why should we let poor why be restricted and abused?As well as inviting anyone to defend one or more of the statements, I'd like to hear from those of you who agree that science asks and answers many "why" questions, and any reasons or evidence you can think of that supports the view.To save people being embarrassed by rash commitments, it might be wise to consider just a tiny bit of the evidence in relation to "why" and science. Why do plants..Why do animals.A definition from:Why - definition of why by The Free Dictionarywhy (hw, w)
adv.
For what purpose, reason, or cause; with what intention, justification, or motive: Why is the door shut? Why do birds sing?

But is it an accurate statement? As both science and religion will certainly claim to answer both how and why questions of various kinds, what is the point of it?And if the statement is referring to only one kind of "why" question, shouldn't that be made clear?

Does your "we" include psychologists, archaeologists and zoologists? Archaeologists, faced with the broken remnants of some ancient pottery artifact, will definitely ask themselves what it was for, or rephrased, why it was made.That aside, this thread is really centred on the question in the title. And, as you'd agree, there are plenty of examples of scientists asking and answering why questions that deal with mechanism. I'm certainly ignorant of any known examples of any of the world's religion actually answering a "why" question successfully. By which I mean arriving at an answer that's demonstrably true. I'm not being obstinate. I genuinely can't think of one example. And what tools to they have to answer teleological questions with that aren't available to science?Thanks for your reply, and I'm glad you're not in the "science doesn't answer why questions" camp, on the basis of mechanistic questions (which is actually the main point that I was pushing on another thread that led to this).

Funny you should say that, because I'd been thinking that it sort of reminds me of politician's "sound-bites". Catchy, but no real substance.

You're the man in the lab, so I'm happy to take your word for it.

In a way, but when a question like that (why do birds sing) is asked, it's really asking for immediate reasons or cause unless stated otherwise. Of course, further why and how questions are asked subsequently, and we get into evolution.It's the same in life outside science. I could ask you why you're posting on EvC, for example. You'd probably give what you perceived as the immediate reasons, rather than replying with a 50,000 word essay beginning "I was born.....". Strictly speaking, your life history would be part of a complete detailed answer. Or you could even start the explanation at the Big Bang!I take it that you agree that science asks "why" questions.

So far, no one seems to want to defend statements (1) and (2), which is hardly surprising. There's some defense on statement three, mainly based on the idea that the meaning of "why" in it should be considered in context. As it's there on its own in the O.P. without any surrounding verbiage, I'll try to find some scholarly articles that use that phrase or something very similar when I've got the time.Supposing we amend it to:(3a) Science answers both "how" and "why" question, but only religion answers the "why" questions that are concerned with purpose.Put this way, it's still wrong. Science certainly deals with purpose when it deals with us and any other animals capable of purpose. And there's no reason to suppose that science couldn't or wouldn't deal with purpose if it was somehow identified elsewhere. It just hasn't been.Edited by bluegenes, : rong speling

I think you're now inadvertently making the case for science not only asking why questions, but asking any and all why questions. Both Simon Conway Morris and Richard Dawkins are scientists who've made observations, and come to conclusions in relation to teleology, albeit different ones.So, we can both easily agree on mechanistic why questions. I hope you're coming round to the idea that the hard sciences do actual study humans and other animals, and therefore must consider purpose in their studies. And surely I can persuade you that there's no reason to restrict science from doing what Morris and Dawkins (and many others) have done.All in all, doesn't the first statement in the O.P., the bald "science doesn't ask/answer why questions" just seems a silly thing to say when it's so obviously false?

Why?

Why? Or rather, for what reason? Because it's easier and quicker to use three words than one? It never has been restricted in that way inside or outside science. Why attempt to force useless arbitrary changes on language? Should "when" be restricted to the past, and not used to refer to the future? Should we stop using "where" in questions like "where in your life did you go wrong?" and restrict it to physical geography?Also, when we ask the question, how are we supposed to know the answer and whether or not it involves purpose? Someone comes into the room with wet hair, and you ask "why is your hair wet"? The answer could be that she was caught in the rain outside, or it could be that she's decided to sport the new, fashionable wet look on purpose. But you can't go wrong with a good old word like why, which asks for any reason, cause or purpose. Yes. I pointed out that science does actually sometimes concern itself with purpose on the thread where this started, and Modulous and I have both been putting the point here. In other animals as well as us. Zoology, psychology, archaeology and neurology all could ask questions about it. And indeed, it's their job to find out what it actually is and how and why it emerged.So, that leads me on to a point I was going to bring up. Mechanistic (reason, cause) why questions can end up being asked about purpose itself. On purpose.

You mean that you're enlightening us with the wisdom that an investigation itself is not the object or phenomenon being investigated?Thanks.BTW, was anyone implying anything else?

I agree. Was someone else suggesting that causes are their effects?

I understand exactly what you're saying. So far, you're the king of the apologists for statement 3 in the O.P.However, supposing someone wanted to express the view that there are certain questions that science doesn't ask. They could, for the sake of clarity, phrase it like this: There are certain questions science doesn't ask.Easy, eh?And they could put in the addition to the claim: There are certain questions science doesn't ask which are answered by religion/philosophy.I'm not making that claim, but I'm pointing out that there are easy ways of making it without being ambiguous or linguistically incorrect.For the purposes of this thread, that's my main objection to question (3). As phrased, it can lead to people making statements that are often put forward as if they are facts. Statements 1 and 2 in the O.P. are examples.Whenever I read the phrase: science doesn't ask "why" questions on the internet it makes me cringe. It's as literally incorrect as saying "there's never snow in Canada". But I think you agree with that.As for your examples of broad and narrow questions, they'd make for interesting discussion elsewhere, and for practical purposes, sure, you would break the broad ones down into narrower ones. The broad ones can potentially be given broad answers though.But I don't think that the religious people who put statement 3 forward are really inspired by practicality. In fact, I'm sure they're not.Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

Really? I could see that knowing the cause of delusions, for example, might help destroy them. But it's hard to think of anything much else that would be destroyed by knowledge, apart from ignorance.Do you think that science should stop studying the causes of things? Or perhaps just certain things?

Can you give an example of some knowledge that is "irrelevant to the (or a) reality", because it's hard to see exactly what you mean here, unless it's another version of your rather obvious point that an investigation is not the thing being investigated.