|
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:
|
Science can and does ask and answer all sorts of ‘why’ questions about purpose where purpose is evidenced. What science cannot do is answer ‘why’ questions about purpose when there is no evidence to suggest that any purpose actually exists. In these cases we have every reason to think that claims of purpose are nothing more than the result of human proclivities to assign purpose regardless of whether it is justified or not.
An interesting question that science can and does ask is why it is that humans are so prone to teleological answers. Unfortunately the answers provided by science regarding this particular ‘why’ question are probably not particularly compatible with your own belief in some sort of causeless purpose. But that’s OK because you will happily ignore as irrelevant any aspects of demonstrable reality which cannot be reconciled with your beliefs anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
jar writes: 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. This assertion only makes sense if one assumes mind/body dualism. That you keep stating the consequences of your baseless beliefs as if they are somehow incontrovertible facts is not helping this thread progress.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3267 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
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. This is not true. Using fMRI and little bit of calibration with the actual individual involved, scientists have indeed been able to determine which object a person is going to choose moments before they are aware of the choice themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Because I myself have no idea which one I will pick or why I picked one over another.
And of course, no I did not exclude brain activity. 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: |
But it is irrelevant what can be reconciled with my beliefs. The question is why are these my unique beliefs?
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: |
But that still does not explain why I made those choices, only the mechanics of how I made those choices.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3267 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
But that still does not explain why I made those choices, only the mechanics of how I made those choices. And if the mechanics are all there is? I know you don't think this is the case, but much like the ID debate...what would a world be like if mechanics was it and how would it be different from the world we are in now?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It would be far less interesting and pretty much worthless.
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: |
jar writes: But it is irrelevant what can be reconciled with my beliefs. The question is why are these my unique beliefs? Well the evidenced answer to that question is because of various psychological, cultural, genetic and neurological factors that make you "unique". All of which are able to be investigated using the methods of science. That you have devised some un-evidenced purpose behind these things is neither here nor there beyond seeking why it is that you are looking for such baseless teleological answers. But this also a question that science can address.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Because I myself have no idea which one I will pick or why I picked one over another. Argument from ignorance.
And of course, no I did not exclude brain activity. Sure you do. You claim that there is more going on than just the phsycial interactions because . . . well, you just believe it so it is true. So I will also say that there is more going on in weather than just the physical and mechanical interactions because I say so, therefore science can not explain why it rains.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3267 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
It would be far less interesting and pretty much worthless. Why do you say this? How would you recognize the difference?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
On its own, it's meaningless, and it wouldn't give context to the other two statements even if it appeared with them. I think it does. Its setting up a dichotomy that is practically taughtological - the why-questions that science cannot answer are the ones being referred to that religion can.
Which doesn't refer to any specific type. Those that are diametrically opposed to the questions that science does answer.
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. I read it as why-qustions like the ones of purpose that Dawn was talking about, but not of any kind at all.
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. But you can't limit what they are talking about to what makes the most sense to you. Perhaps they were just talking bollocks all along, but that in itself doesn't mean that they should be interpreted as meaning something else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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? See Message 70
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Well mayhaps some day it will, and if so I will reconsider my position.
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: |
Okay, if that is your position then of course you are free to believe that.
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