Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does science ask and answer "why" questions?
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 166 of 353 (647685)
01-10-2012 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Straggler
01-10-2012 5:13 PM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
Ah, no, you still seem to not understand.
Yes, it is possible to change what I think and believe, in fact I do it quite often. Today's sky is much nicer than yesterday's sky.
But I said that it was the ideal that is causeless, not what I think or believe but rather love, honor, faith, GOD that are causeless.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Straggler, posted 01-10-2012 5:13 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Perdition, posted 01-10-2012 5:28 PM jar has replied
 Message 170 by Straggler, posted 01-11-2012 8:15 AM jar has replied
 Message 181 by Straggler, posted 01-11-2012 12:19 PM jar has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 167 of 353 (647686)
01-10-2012 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by jar
01-10-2012 5:25 PM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
But I said that it was the ideal that is causeless, not what I think or believe but rather love, honor, faith, GOD that are causeless.
Are you arguing for a form of Plato's forms? Where we experience a reflection or copy of love, but that the essence of love exists independent of us?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by jar, posted 01-10-2012 5:25 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by jar, posted 01-10-2012 6:59 PM Perdition has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 168 of 353 (647690)
01-10-2012 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by RAZD
01-10-2012 5:03 PM


Re: who what when where why how ... purpose and science
Zen Deist writes:
Hi bluegenes, still struggling?
No. I speak English, and I understand the uses of the word "why".
I take it that you are attempting to support questions (1) and (2).
1)Science doesn't ask/answer why questions
2)The proper use of "why" is to answer questions of purpose
Once again, you're imposing your own incorrect restrictions on the the word "why" in order to waffle on about it. While you keep doing that, your posts are meaningless.
You are assuming (2) in order to make the case for (1).
Zen writes:
If you are satisfied with an incomplete, tentative and partial answer then wail away.
Stop fantasizing about me struggling and wailing. It doesn't make your case.
Here are two complete, non-tentative facts.
1) Science doesn't ask/answer why questions is a false claim.
2) The proper use of "why" is to answer questions of purpose is linguistic nonsense and a false claim.
Now do you agree with those two facts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by RAZD, posted 01-10-2012 5:03 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 169 of 353 (647694)
01-10-2012 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Perdition
01-10-2012 5:28 PM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
Not arguing for it, rather saying I believe that is true just as i believe I am a soul separate from my body and that GOD exists.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Perdition, posted 01-10-2012 5:28 PM Perdition has not replied

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


(2)
Message 170 of 353 (647760)
01-11-2012 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by jar
01-10-2012 5:25 PM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
These ambiguous "ideals" of yours are not what I or Mod or anybody else started out asking you about at the outset of this discussion.
jar writes:
How can science observe why I think something?
Message 49
jar writes:
Yes, I am saying that the personal preference can be studied by science until the cows come home and still be unable to tell me any reason why I hold that preference.
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.
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:
I do not try to reconcile those things.
Now it turns out that you are a dualist and all of your original assertions are at least consistent with that flawed belief system. That you are unable to reconcile these beliefs with the demonstrable facts is now obvious.
Frankly jar it's the same same old with you. You start out in a discussion making some trite assertions and treating anyone who questions these as if they are just too silly to see what is obviously true. Then after much effort on the part of others it slowly becomes clear that these original assertions of yours are based on some unsupportable starting assumption (dualism in this particular instance). Then all further objections are met with your standard fallback position of (to paraphrase) "It's what I believe, it's what I believe, you can't tell me what to believe".
Maybe if you started out discussions by making clear that your starting points are nothing more than the consequences of your baseless beliefs a lot of time could be saved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by jar, posted 01-10-2012 5:25 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by jar, posted 01-11-2012 8:28 AM Straggler has not replied

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


Message 171 of 353 (647764)
01-11-2012 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Straggler
01-11-2012 8:15 AM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
Of course I am a dualist and I still see no evidence that science can explain why I think something.
Science can address the mechanics, the neurons, the environment, my history, many of the mechanics but that still does not explain why I think what I think.
The problem is the meaning of the term why; you seem to see it as process, synonymous with how, while why can also mean purpose.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Straggler, posted 01-11-2012 8:15 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Panda, posted 01-11-2012 10:09 AM jar has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 172 of 353 (647785)
01-11-2012 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by jar
01-11-2012 8:28 AM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
jar writes:
and I still see no evidence that science can explain why I think something.
That is because you refuse to look:
quote:
I do not try to reconcile those things.
Hiding from reality is not conducive to an accurate understanding of it.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by jar, posted 01-11-2012 8:28 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by jar, posted 01-11-2012 10:12 AM Panda has replied

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


Message 173 of 353 (647786)
01-11-2012 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Panda
01-11-2012 10:09 AM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
Sorry but knowing the process and mechanics does not explain the question which is "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 172 by Panda, posted 01-11-2012 10:09 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Panda, posted 01-11-2012 10:20 AM jar has replied
 Message 178 by Taq, posted 01-11-2012 11:48 AM jar has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 174 of 353 (647789)
01-11-2012 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by jar
01-11-2012 10:12 AM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
jar writes:
Sorry but knowing the process and mechanics does not explain the question which is "why I think something".
Sorry but knowing the process and mechanics does explain the question which is "why I think something".
I can even produce examples of chemicals affecting people's preferences, but I know that you "do not try to reconcile those things".
Your baseless assertion is not supported by any evidence.
And your refusal to confront conflicting evidence is indicative of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by jar, posted 01-11-2012 10:12 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by jar, posted 01-11-2012 10:21 AM Panda has replied

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


Message 175 of 353 (647790)
01-11-2012 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Panda
01-11-2012 10:20 AM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
No, it tells me how 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 174 by Panda, posted 01-11-2012 10:20 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Panda, posted 01-11-2012 10:33 AM jar has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 176 of 353 (647793)
01-11-2012 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by jar
01-11-2012 10:21 AM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
jar writes:
No, it tells me how I think something.
And it tells you why.
Your preferences are not separate from the physical world - they are part of your brain.
What happens to your brain affects your preferences.
If you had a car crash and damaged specific parts of your brain you could spend the rest of your life loving Justin Bieber's music.
"Why do you love Justin Bieber's music?" "Because I had a car crash and got brain damage."
Science can study and identify the how and the why.
Your arguments have rapidly drifted into little more than a feeble repetition of "Nuh-uh!"
This convinces me that you are unable to substantiate your claim.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by jar, posted 01-11-2012 10:21 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by jar, posted 01-11-2012 10:46 AM Panda has not replied

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


Message 177 of 353 (647794)
01-11-2012 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Panda
01-11-2012 10:33 AM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
So you claim.
And I have never tried to substantiate any claim, rather simply presented the facts of what I believe.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Panda, posted 01-11-2012 10:33 AM Panda has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 178 of 353 (647804)
01-11-2012 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by jar
01-11-2012 10:12 AM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
Sorry but knowing the process and mechanics does not explain the question which is "why I think something".
Then knowing the processes and mechanics of how precipitation forms and falls to the Earth does not explain the question of why it rains.
Then knowing the processes and mechanics of how oxygen and hydrogen combine to produce water does not explain the question of why water molecules exist.
I could go on and on, but I think you get the drift.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by jar, posted 01-11-2012 10:12 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by jar, posted 01-11-2012 11:55 AM Taq has replied

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


Message 179 of 353 (647805)
01-11-2012 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Taq
01-11-2012 11:48 AM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
I get your drift but see no relevance.
Rain falling is purely mechanics; rain does not decide to fall.
I'm getting ready to go out for sum lunch and considering which fountain pen to take with me; the Yard-o-Led Smythson, the Yard-o-Led Viceroy Pocket Victorian or the Grifos Nyloe Checkerboard Guilloche.
Science can help me understand the mechanics of how I make that decision, but it will not explain which one I will actually stick in my pocket and take along.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Taq, posted 01-11-2012 11:48 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Taq, posted 01-11-2012 11:58 AM jar has replied
 Message 182 by Straggler, posted 01-11-2012 12:22 PM jar has seen this message but not replied
 Message 183 by Perdition, posted 01-11-2012 12:50 PM jar has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(2)
Message 180 of 353 (647807)
01-11-2012 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by jar
01-11-2012 11:55 AM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
Rain falling is purely mechanics;
So is brain activity. You want to selectively exclude brain activity from other natural and physical processes for no other reason than it pleasing your beliefs.
Science can help me understand the mechanics of how I make that decision, but it will not explain which one I will actually stick in my pocket and take along.
Why can't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by jar, posted 01-11-2012 11:55 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by jar, posted 01-11-2012 3:16 PM Taq 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