Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does science ask and answer "why" questions?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 46 of 353 (647241)
01-08-2012 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by jar
01-08-2012 7:06 PM


Nuances.
jar writes:
Only personal opinion can tell us where to sit or what to think although certain tools such as theology and philosophy can help us determine what questions are important to ask.
So why do we hold the personal opinions that we do?
Is this not a scientific question?
jar writes:
The problem is that the term "why" has so many possible nuances that I think this thread is pretty much doomed from the gitgo.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by jar, posted 01-08-2012 7:06 PM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 47 of 353 (647242)
01-08-2012 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Straggler
01-08-2012 7:13 PM


Re: Nuances.
No it is not a science problem.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Straggler, posted 01-08-2012 7:13 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Straggler, posted 01-08-2012 7:17 PM jar has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 48 of 353 (647244)
01-08-2012 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by jar
01-08-2012 7:15 PM


Re: Nuances.
jar writes:
No it is not a science problem.
So you assert.
But if it is observed why is it not best investigated and answered by the methods of science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 01-08-2012 7:15 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 01-08-2012 7:30 PM Straggler has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 49 of 353 (647245)
01-08-2012 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Straggler
01-08-2012 7:17 PM


Re: Nuances.
What is observed?
How can science observe why I think something?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Straggler, posted 01-08-2012 7:17 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Modulous, posted 01-08-2012 8:44 PM jar has replied
 Message 58 by Straggler, posted 01-09-2012 8:45 AM jar has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 50 of 353 (647250)
01-08-2012 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by jar
01-08-2012 7:30 PM


Observations in the realm of thoughts
How can science observe why I think something?
Unless you are a substance dualist, the reason why you had a thought is an empirical question, being as it is based on physical phenomena. It is a difficult thing to study, but it is not in principle necessarily impossible. There are several layers of possible answers.
For instance, we could establish that the reason why you thought that flipping the number '2' card over was a good idea was because of confirmation bias.
Or we could learn that the reason why you thought it was a good idea to kill the person was because you were in fear of your life.
Or we could learn that the reason why you thought of wearing red socks this morning was because neuron number 7 fired rather than 8. We could even establish the reason why neuron number 7 was the one that fired.
Again, this is not necessarily easy, and it's not always (presently) possible. But it is an empirical question, and the tools of science can be employed to try and find an answer.
Science can't observe why you think something, but it can use observation and reason to infer why you think something. It might not always be right, but that's science, neh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 01-08-2012 7:30 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by jar, posted 01-08-2012 8:50 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 51 of 353 (647251)
01-08-2012 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Modulous
01-08-2012 8:44 PM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
So you assert.
Science can investigate the mechanics but that is all, it is still not the "why".

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Modulous, posted 01-08-2012 8:44 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Modulous, posted 01-08-2012 9:22 PM jar has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 52 of 353 (647256)
01-08-2012 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by jar
01-08-2012 8:50 PM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
So you assert.
Are you suggesting that cause of your thoughts is not a physical phenomenon that is potentially open to empirical investigation?
Science can investigate the mechanics but that is all, it is still not the "why".
It is exactly the why. For instance, in one case as mentioned in my post the reason why might be confirmation bias.
What is why if not a question of mechanics? It is asking 'what mechanics have lead to this outcome?', 'what is the cause of this thing?' 'for what reason does it happen?', 'what is the explanation for this phenomena?'.
If you mean something else by the by the question 'why did I think such and such?' the onus is on you to explain what you mean.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by jar, posted 01-08-2012 8:50 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by jar, posted 01-08-2012 9:39 PM Modulous has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 53 of 353 (647259)
01-08-2012 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Modulous
01-08-2012 9:22 PM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
I have explained what I mean, why can't you understand it?
You can the investigate the mechanics but not the actual why. As I mentioned above that is the reason this thread is ultimately futile; the actual meaning of "why" is so totally ambiguous as to make this whole effort just irrelevant.
Why is as unrelated to the mechanism as art is to the medium used; as unrelated to the unique appreciation of a musical passage is to the mechanism of the medium used to play the passage.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Modulous, posted 01-08-2012 9:22 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Modulous, posted 01-08-2012 9:52 PM jar has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 54 of 353 (647261)
01-08-2012 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by jar
01-08-2012 9:39 PM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
I have explained what I mean, why can't you understand it?
In Message 38, you don't say a thing about it.
In Message 40 you are silent on the matter.
In Message 42 you provide no explanation.
Message 44 has an absence of exposition
Message 47 is just a seven word assertion.
Message 49 contains yet more lack of explanation.
Message 51 is you asserting I asserted something, followed by you asserting something yourself, with a familiar void of elucidation as to what you mean by the words you are using.
I reject your claim that you have explained what you mean
You can the investigate the mechanics but not the actual why.
What do you mean by 'actual why'?
As I mentioned above that is the reason this thread is ultimately futile; the actual meaning of "why" is so totally ambiguous as to make this whole effort just irrelevant.
I was assuming that you know what you mean when you say something. I was just asking for you to tell me that. If I am mistaken, I guess this is at least a futile subthread.
Why is as unrelated to the mechanism...
If it is not a question of the mechanics behind a phenomena, then what is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by jar, posted 01-08-2012 9:39 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by jar, posted 01-08-2012 9:55 PM Modulous has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 55 of 353 (647262)
01-08-2012 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Modulous
01-08-2012 9:52 PM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
If it is not a question of the mechanics behind a phenomena, then what is it?
It is the phenomena itself.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Modulous, posted 01-08-2012 9:52 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Modulous, posted 01-08-2012 10:01 PM jar has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 56 of 353 (647265)
01-08-2012 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by jar
01-08-2012 9:55 PM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
It is the phenomena itself.
What does that mean in the context of the question I asked? I am beginning to think that the reason you think this thread is doomed is because your own thinking on the matter is hopelessly confused.
Why is the sky blue?
The phenomena is the blueness of the sky.
Why do I think such a thought?
The phenomena is the thought.
The thought itself is not why you thought the thought. That's clearly nonsense. So what is why? It can't be the phenomena itself, it is a question about the phenomena. If it isn't asking about the mechanics that lead to the phenomena, what is it about the phenomena that it is asking?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by jar, posted 01-08-2012 9:55 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by jar, posted 01-08-2012 10:15 PM Modulous has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 57 of 353 (647271)
01-08-2012 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Modulous
01-08-2012 10:01 PM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
The mechanics of why the sky is blue is easy to explain and certainly within the province of science.
Why I like a blue sky is personal to me and the moment.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Modulous, posted 01-08-2012 10:01 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Modulous, posted 01-09-2012 12:29 PM jar has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 58 of 353 (647314)
01-09-2012 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by jar
01-08-2012 7:30 PM


Re: Nuances.
jar writes:
What is observed?
You are.
jar writes:
How can science observe why I think something?
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.
jar writes:
Why I like a blue sky is personal to me and the moment.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 01-08-2012 7:30 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 01-09-2012 8:47 AM Straggler has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 59 of 353 (647315)
01-09-2012 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Straggler
01-09-2012 8:45 AM


Re: Nuances.
That is still just the mechanics.
Sure we can study how a hammer is made, but the process is not the hammer.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Straggler, posted 01-09-2012 8:45 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Straggler, posted 01-09-2012 9:40 AM jar has replied
 Message 61 by Panda, posted 01-09-2012 9:42 AM jar has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 60 of 353 (647325)
01-09-2012 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by jar
01-09-2012 8:47 AM


Re: Nuances.
jar writes:
That is still just the mechanics.
What is the non-mechanical aspect of this? What exactly is it that you are alluding to that I am missing here?
jar writes:
Why I like a blue sky is personal to me and the moment.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 01-09-2012 8:47 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 01-09-2012 9:46 AM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024