Summations Only

In reply to Message 229You seem to be accepting of the (frankly indisputable) fact that science does ask 'why' questions whilst suggesting that it shouldn't. Why shouldn't science ask why questions? Well why do humans (whether they be "obnoxiously snarky kids" or otherwise) have a tendency to relentlessly ask such questions? Is it because they have a psychological proclivity to seek human-like intent and purpose? This is a 'why' question and one that science is the best method of investigating. No? But surely it depends on the question being asked?How do people ask 'why' questions? Why do people ask 'why' questions?The first is a matter of linguistics. The second is a matter of psychology. The two are very different questions. But both are best answered by science. Right?'Why' is not just prevalent in science. I would suggest it is absolutely frikkin fundamental to the whole endevour.

HelloScience indisputably does ask 'why' questions. Anyone who disputes this simply needs to scan the peer reviewed scientific literature for such questions (and corresponding 'because' answers) before admitting that they are wrong. It really is that simple (to coin a phrase).A mildly tangential question is - Should science ask 'why' questions? In other words - Should the question 'why' be restricted to purposeful intent rather than cover reason and cause as well?I don't see any reason for science to insist on such a restriction. Certainly science doesn't currently restrict itself in this sense.AbE - It is also worth saying that science does indeed cover purposeful intent. Why do humans exhibit the behaviour that they are observed to do is a scientific question.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Who says so?The fact is that scientific peer reviewed literature is full of 'why' questions pertaining to cause and reason rather than purpose. Furthermore scientific peer reviewed literature is full of conclusions phrased in the form of 'because' answers.So who exactly is it that is asserting that this is 'improper'.....?You and Dawn Bertot and who else?

Why is science a superior method of investigating reality?Discuss.Can science answer that question?

What do you mean by the "mechanics and engineering of reality"....?

OK. I am almost convinced. So (if not science) what is it that does tell us "where to sit" or "what to think"....?What area of investigation do such questions belong to if not science? And how does this relate to the scientificness (or otherwise) of 'why' questions posed in this thread?

So why do we hold the personal opinios that we do?Is this not a scientific question? [qs=jar]The problem is that the term "why" has so many possible nuances that I think this thread is pretty much doomed from the gitgo.

So why do we hold the personal opinions that we do?Is this not a scientific question? Aside from the theistic/deistic proclivity to assert that 'why' is somehow scientifically unanswerable I am not sure what you are referring to?I mean a 'Last Thursdayist' would presumably deny the validity of science asking 'when' and a solipsist would presumably deny the ability of science to ask 'who'..... How is the sometime theistic/deistic denial of 'why' ultimately any different to these two examples?

So you assert.But if it is observed why is it not best investigated and answered by the methods of science?

You are. Isn't that what psychology is all about?Furthermore - In principle (even if we lack the technology currently) the detailed workings of your brain can be observed to see exactly why you think something. Are you suggesting that such thoughts and preferences are causeless?If they are not causeless then science is the best means of investigating the cause (i.e. the 'why') is it not?

What is the non-mechanical aspect of this? What exactly is it that you are alluding to that I am missing here? OK. But are you suggesting that this personal preference is causeless? Or are you suggesting that there is a reason or cause for this personal preference that cannot be investigated scientifically?I am very unclear as to exactly what it is you are getting at here.

OK. But why does that preclude science from investigating why it is you hold that preference? OK. But are you suggesting that this personal preference is causeless? Or are you suggesting that there is a reason or cause for this personal preference that cannot be investigated scientifically?

Science can study any reason or cause that is physical. Right?So if science is unable to study the cause of your preferences (i.e. why it is that you hold the preferences that you do) then your preferences must have either a non-physical cause or no cause at all.Can you elaborate as to what you think the basis of your preferences actually is (rather than what it isn’t) and explain why it is that science cannot study this?

If you just want an answer to Why are we here? then the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy provides an answer to the meaning of life the universe and everything (it’s 42 to the uninitiated). Does that suffice? Will any old answer do as long as there is one? Is the answer god superior to the answer 42?

All of the evidence indicates that they are. On what basis do you make the claim that these things are not physical? The physical cause of your preferences and ideals is very relevant to them. If we were to selectively lobotomise you or ply you with various mind altering drugs your ideals and preferences would doubtless be significantly effected. If something is causeless then it is just random isn't it? Do you think preferences just occur randomly? Or are you suggesting that preferences and ideals are uncaused but somehow non-random?Frankly you seem to be on the verge of taking dualism to new heights.