|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does science ask and answer "why" questions? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: But your preference for a blue sky (which is what we were talking about) requires your brain to physically exist doesn't it? jar writes: And as I said, I am not at all sure and in fact believe that such things do not require my brain to exist. Straggler writes: Do you accept that changes to your physical brain (e.g. selective lobotomisation or mind altering drugs) will change the preferences that you hold? jar writes: Sure. But I also find that totally irrelevant and unimportant to the issue. Well I am baffled as to how one can reconcile the fact that changes to ones physical brain can shape ones preferences with the belief that ones preferences are independent of physical brains. How do you reconcile this? Edited by Straggler, : Spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
From the OP:
quote: CS writes: It does answer some why questions, just not the ones referred to in statement 3. Which ones are they? How do we identify them?
CS writes: There are other proper uses of that word, just not in the context of statement 3. The "context of statement 3" being.......? What exactly?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2507 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
Catholic Scientist writes: Okay. I don't have the same problem with the wording that you do. Besides, its pretty much just a catchphrase. On its own, it's meaningless, and it wouldn't give context to the other two statements even if it appeared with them.
Catholic Scientists writes: But statements 1 and 2 were made within a very specifc context with a certain definition of "why". Changing the context and definition to reduce their veracity isn't an honest approach. No. RAZD argued for the point made baldly in statement (2). That appears to be what he believes, and it's the source of his confusion.
CS quoting statement (1) writes: Science doesn't ask/answer "why" questions It does answer some why questions, just not the ones refered to in statement 3. Which doesn't refer to any specific type.
CS writes: There are other proper uses of that word, just not in the context of statement 3. So statement 2 presented on its own would be wrong. And we don't have any context in statement 3 anyway.
CS writes: If you look at the context in which RAZD brought in the phrase, DB was saying that the TOE wasn't falsifiable because it didn't answer the ultimate why-question on the existence of species in the first place. RAZD pointed out that science doesn't answer those questions, but rather answers the how-questions on the emergence of species. And he was right. Now, you can remove all that context and assume he was just saying something stupid and then go to show how his statement could be wrong, but I don't think that's an honest approach to understanding the point that was being made. He was making some correct points to Dawn. But he was also making some incorrect points which confused the issue, and it was those that I pointed to. It isn't correct, for example, to say that scientific theories do not answer "why" questions. All his "sky is blue" stuff that he was giving to Dawn was wrong. "Why is the sky blue" asks for immediate reasons, not the purposeful intent of the sky gods! RAZD brought in statement (2) in order to try to define why so that he would be right in his assertion that science doesn't answer why questions. By which he meant all of them. Even that wouldn't work, because questions concerning purpose are asked in some fields, as I'd already pointed out. It could be summed up like this. Dawn wants to bring his god into science to answer why questions. RAZD makes a philosophical argument against this, but shows his agreement with Dawn that naturalistic science does not address why questions of any kind. Dawn wants why in, thinking it means purposeful creation; RAZD says science doesn't deal with why, apparently thinking the same. Bluegenes thinks that science does address the why questions anyway and that there's no evidence of any purpose being involved in evolution and the origin of life, so that questions like "why is there life on earth" are technical and scientific anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I see you have been cheering jar in this thread and I wondered if you too are a dualist?
It would explain a lot.......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Perhaps that is true for you. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. That is the rub for this topic. Science can ask the why questions, but only the why's for things that are real. Does science need to ask why leprechauns are green? No, because no one can show that leprechauns are real. This is not a matter of science being incapable of answering these why questions. It is a matter of the why questions being based on things that are not a part of reality.
If so I am sorry.
While I appreciate the sentiment, your pity is not needed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3267 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Well I am baffled as to how one can reconcile the fact that changes to ones physical brain can shape ones preferences with the belief that ones preferences are independent of physical brains. Let me preface my response by stating that I am not a dualist...I prefer my own made up term, Quantum Determinist. But, you could say that the brain is the filter for the "soul" or whatever non-physical thing we are beyond our bodies. Then, if you mess with the brain, you mess with the filter, making things seem to be different, when the source, the "soul" is still unchanged. It would be like drawing on or breaking the monitor fo your computer. It can't show you things in certain areas of the screen, but that doesn't change the functions or storage of the computer, just the disply of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I have never denied that I am a dualist.
I figured, perhaps wrongly, that over the years you might have noticed. Sorry.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I did not say there was an ideal beauty but rather there was the ideal beauty.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
A counterfeit, no matter how closely it copies the real thing, is still a counterfeit.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: Well I am baffled as to how one can reconcile the fact that changes to ones physical brain can shape ones preferences with the belief that ones preferences are independent of physical brains. How do you reconcile this? jar writes: A counterfeit, no matter how closely it copies the real thing, is still a counterfeit. Firstly - How does that answer the above question? How do you reconcile the fact that changes to ones physical brain can shape ones preferences with the belief that ones preferences are independent of physical brains. Secondly - Is that true? If two things are literally physically identical (down to the quark or whatever) how do you tell which is the "real" one?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Perdition writes: Then, if you mess with the brain, you mess with the filter, making things seem to be different, when the source, the "soul" is still unchanged. So if you suffer some brain damage that changes your personality radically you think there is a non-physical "real you" with your original personality floating around somewhere? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: I did not say there was an ideal beauty but rather there was the ideal beauty. I'm afraid I have no idea what this means. Can you clarify? Maybe give an example of what you mean?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3267 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
So if you suffer some brain damage that changes your personality radically you think there is a non-physical "real you" with your original personality floating around somewhere? Do I think so? No. Do Dualists think so? From what I've heard from them, yes they do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Perdition writes: Do Dualists think so? From what I've heard from them, yes they do. Is there any reason whatsoever to think this even might be true?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I'm not sure I could tell the difference but of course that is irrelevant to the fact that one is not the original.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024