|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,469 Year: 3,726/9,624 Month: 597/974 Week: 210/276 Day: 50/34 Hour: 1/5 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does science ask and answer "why" questions? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2153 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
"Why" has a number of different valid meanings, as you point out. But as CS says, when the context makes a contrast between "how" and "why", it is generally distinguishing between mechanism and purpose. When someone claims that "science answers the "how" questions and religion answers the "why" questions" this is the distinction that he is trying to make. I agree with CS that this meaning should be so obvious from the context of the statement itself that it needs no further explanation.
In scientific contexts we do often use the word "why", but we mean "why" in the sense of mechanism, not of purpose. Though the original claim is very concise, I think its meaning is sufficintly clear for anyone who is not being intentionally ignorant or obstinate. But if you aren't comfortable with the wording of the original claim, you can still communicate the same concept by using the word "why" in two different senses and distinguishing between them. I like the following story, which comes from C.S. Lewis: Suppose you enter your Grandmother's house, hear a teapot whistling, and ask, "Why is the teapot whistling?" Someone could answer in terms of thermodynamics, fluid flow, the physical properties of water, acoustic properties of the nozzle on the kettle, etc. The answer would be a perfectly valid mechanistic answer of "why" the teapot is boiling. But someone could also answer that the teapot is boiling because Grandma is thirsty and wants her afternoon tea. This answer is just as valid and accurate as the first. One answer addresses mechanism, and the other addresses purpose. No matter how you decide to communicate it, the point is that science can only deal well with mechanistic, cause-effect explanations. It can't address teleological questions very well, if at all. Religion and philosophy specialize in teleological questions. Religion sometimes touches on questions of mechanism as well, but this is generally not addressed in depth and is secondary to questions of purpose. Edited by kbertsche, : Add sentence."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2153 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:If you are thinking of the social sciences, you probably have a point. (I am a physicist, and I often use "science" as a shorthand for "the physical sciences"). I would argue that the physical sciences do not address purpose. Even an MRI (or PET scan) only addresses mechanism, not purpose."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2153 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:And the "why" answers that (physical) science offers for all of these are mechanistic, not teleological. Modern (physical) science consciously tries to restrict itself to mechanism, and this is one of its strengths. This makes modern (physical) science much more objective and a-religious than, say, Medieval "science", which was highly teleological. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2153 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:It's interesting that some of the most prominent and strident atheists insist that evolution is dysteleological, having no goal and no purpose. They seem to realize that questions of purpose will open the door to religious answers, which they want to avoid at all costs. For example:
Charles Darwin writes:
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. Daniel Dennett writes: In the beginning, there were no reasons; there were only causes. Nothing had a purpose, nothing had so much as a function; there was no teleology in the world at all. Edited by kbertsche, : Add Darwin quote Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2153 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: Yes, I largely agree with you. Prominent atheistic evolutionists have a theological/philosophical belief that there is no purpose behind evolution. Theistic evolutionists, on the other hand, have a theological belief that there is a purpose behind evolution. Whether or not there really is a purpose cannot be answered by science alone. Denis Lamoureux is very clear about the distinction between teleological and dysteleological evolution, and the fact that this is a theological/philosophical question, not a scientific question. I recommend his videos, which can be found in YouTube and iTunesU:
Coming to Terms with Evolution Beyond the Evolution vs. Creation Debate Edited by kbertsche, : Fixed YouTube links?"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2153 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:But there is also opposing evidence that evolution does have a direction or goal. Simon Conway Morris (a theistic, teleological evolutionist) has shown evidence of this with examples of biological "convergence", such as the similarity between the human eye and the octopus eye. quote:Oops; did I mis-attribute a quote? "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2153 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:I don't see how this is "begging the question"? Rather it is stating that questions of teleology are outside the realm of science. And if teleological questions cannot be addressed by science, then neither can science declare that there is (or is not) any teleology underlying the universe. This is a theological/philosophical question, not addressable by science. quote:I agree that teleology is scientifically untstable. My understanding of the sense of Laplace's famous statement is that he did not need to invoke theological (or teleological) language to provide a purely scientific explanation of physical phenomena. I understand that he was a theist, so he did not mean that God (or teleology) did not exist. I believe I've recommended Helen Quinn's excellent Physics Today article, What is Science? in other threads. Here is an excerpt from it:
Helen Quinn writes: In everyday usage the question Why? can be either about the mechanism by which something occurred or about the reasons for or purposes behind an action. Thus the distinction between reason and mechanism, or between effect and purpose, is often blurred. Religion and philosophy are interested in reasons and purposes, but science cares only about mechanisms. That apparent reduction of the goal is a powerful step that separates modern science from its ancestor, natural philosophy. ... However, scientists tend to forget that issues of reason and purpose are central to many people’s questioning, so the answers they get from science seem inadequate. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. Edited by kbertsche, : Fix Quinn reference "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2153 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:I don't mean to "beg the question" with these statements. I mean to say that if there is a realm outside of science, then (by definition) it cannot be investigated by science. If there is such a thing as "purpose" or teleology, then it lies in a realm outside of science. So is there such a thing as purpose? Is there a realm outside of science? I believe there is, you believe there isn't. Helen Quinn leaves the question open. (I wonder what she thinks about this? I'll try to remember to ask next time I see her.) All of us are scientists, but our science cannot answer these questions. These are questions for theology or philosophy."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2153 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
quote:You have claimed this, but I don't think we have established it. And I don't think it is true. First, what do you mean by "demonstrably" real? Presumably you mean things which can be demonstrated through testable, scientific evidence. But if so, all you have done is to state a tautology. The only things that science can address are the things that science can address. Is there any reality outside of science, in the non-material world? Maybe or maybe not, but science can't tell us one way or the other. Second, science addresses and investigates a number of things which are not demonstrably "real", and which may never be so. Science asks and answers questions about quarks, cosmic strings, multiverses, etc. These provide good models of reality, but they are not necessarily "real" themselves."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024