|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does science ask and answer "why" questions? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Dr A writes: It was a reference to Sherlock Holmes. But I still have no idea what you're talking about.But it didn't actually make sense. I think Chuckles was trying to be clever - but that is not one of his strengths.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
First, I want to thank Straggler for redirecting me to this thread.
My original post that Straqgler guided me here is now seen by me as woefully inadequate. For that I am sorry. I have no specific quarrel with those who wish to use "why" in a clear context-obvious manner. But it is also true that I see a lot of discussion here. This sort of confirms my point. I see zero discussion, for example, of how long a meter is. No architect would use terms like "a skosh", "a dibble", or "a CH", to describe the actual work involved. But carpenters do it all the time. My objection to the use of the 3-letter word "why" is that it is context dependent. Not only do different countries and cultures see this fuzzy term differently, but people of different religions within the same culture & country see it differently. Science abhors inexact words. They want the scientific definition that can only have ONE exact meaning. Every use of the word can be rephrased in a more exact manner. Why is the sky blue? Nobody anywhere really knows. It just happens to have a nice cogent scientific explanation that is cool on it's own right, but still obviously fails to address the other issue - why are the physics that make us see blue picking blue over some other color - do any 2 of us see "blue" the same?. Why does the caged bird sing? Excellent use of the word "why", but still, not scientific. From a scientific view, birds sing the way they do because their parents that did before had more surviving offspring to perpetuate their song. There is no deep "why" here. It just happened that way by simple matter of course - over a very long period of time. Yet still there another angle on this. If i could hijack this thread a tad, the issue might have have been crystallized by my brother's "for what purpose is the sky blue?" At this point, for the most part, barring something I haven't seen yet, the only creature that ever has been seeking an underlying "purpose" has been homo sapiens. One could almost say, that, coupled with "self awareness", the act of selecting a course of action for a "purpose" is a condition for becoming an intelligent participating component of the galactic community all those SciFi writers speak of. Did a cheetah stop to ask why he chased this particular gazelle down? Did a porpoise ask why he did a figure-8 leap at Sea World (So long and thanks for all the fish!)? Did a chimpanzee ask himself why he attacked the other chimp who was approaching his mate? ( ********censored******** ) When we, evidenced creatures of free will, select one path of action over another, do we ask why? No - it's all subroutines running under the main program. Yes - we constantly ask ourselves if what we are about to do is the way we want to proceed. Hmm. Scientists themselves are human so far. It is not surprising that they would get caught up in this. It is far easier to use the 3-letter word, as in "Why did we see that?", than things like "How is it that these phenomena we have observed with our calibrated equipment occurred?" Edited by xongsmith, : foot in mouth disease- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi xongsmith
... Why does the caged bird sing? Excellent use of the word "why", but still, not scientific. From a scientific view, birds sing the way they do because their parents that did before had more surviving offspring to perpetuate their song. ... That is how some birds that can sing have used song. Not all birds use song to attract mates, and some birds do not sing, so the link between song and mating is certainly not complete nor necessarily causal. Did mating come about after song? It is more likely that song was adapted to various uses, not that it exists for those purposes. Science can ask how bird singing evolved, how the uses of bird song evolved, how it varies in different varieties and species, and how song is used today: these are proper questions that can be explored by science. Why bird singing exists is not. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
xongsmith writes: My objection to the use of the 3-letter word "why" is that it is context dependent. So are all the interrogative words. That's why they're used in phrases with other words that give them some context. Why aren't you objecting to the word "how", which is the interrogative adverb often described as having several different common usages? "How" is singled out here: http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/ADVERBS9.cfm
quote: xongsmith writes: Science abhors inexact words. They want the scientific definition that can only have ONE exact meaning. No. If that were the case, they'd never use any interrogatives. Also, check out the history and evolution in usage of words like "science" and "atom", and the difficulties inherent in defining words like "life" and "species".
xongsmith writes: If i could hijack this thread a tad, the issue might have have been crystallized by my brother's "for what purpose is the sky blue?" One of the reasons I started this thread is that your brother (Zen Deist)* makes the mistake of excluding reason and cause from the usage of "why" in questions like "why is the sky blue?" It means "for what reason is the sky blue?". It is not a question that automatically implies objective meaning or intentional purpose. Look at three ways we might phrase this accompanied by possible creationist answers: Why is the sky blue? Because God made/wanted it that way. For what reason is the sky blue? Because God made/wanted it that way. How is it that the sky is blue? Because that's how God made it/wanted it to be. Because "why", "what", and "how" can be used in connection with intentional purpose and meaning certainly does not mean that they always are. Scientists today use "why" in pretty much the same way that Darwin used it in On the Origin... They use it in ways that are linguistically very well established, and therefore "proper". The statement: A proper use of "why" is for questions of purpose is absolutely true. The statement: The proper use of "why" is for questions of purpose is absolutely false. The above applies both to our everyday usage and to science. More examples of why and how in religion: Why did God make us? Because He's the perfect Good. Or maybe: Out of love." Or maybe: Because he so desired. How did God make us? He made the first man from dust, and the first woman from one of the man's ribs."
* I know you know who your own brother is, but others may not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Zen Deist writes: Science can ask how bird singing evolved, how the uses of bird song evolved, how it varies in different varieties and species, and how song is used today: these are proper questions that can be explored by science. Why bird singing exists is not. Why are you still assuming non-existent restrictions on "why", and therefore your bizzare conclusions?
Why do birds sing? The question investigates the immediate reasons and causes behind bird singing.
The abstract in this paper discusses an hypothesis about the reason for the existence of the dawn chorus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
X writes: If i could hijack this thread a tad, the issue might have have been crystallized by my brother's "for what purpose is the sky blue?" But whose purpose are you seeking when you ask that question? And why cannot the cause of this purpose be investigated? I think Cavediver has best summed up the problems with the teleological approach you seem to be advocating: Message 30 Cavey writes: It is assuming that there is something (purpose?) that makes "why" a different question to "how", in order to take "why" outside the realm of science - and it is assuming that "purpose" is something more than emergent behaviour of certain complex systems. Cavey writes: There is no teleology other than that dreamt up by theologians and philosophers. And the mindsets that produced these dreams of teleology are very much within the realms of science. This thread seems to have revealed that any insistence that "why" questions cannot be answered by science is ultimately based on the assumption that there is some non-physical thing imposing purpose on the physical world. Whether it is the assumption that human minds are dualistic in the sense of not being reducible to physical brains or the assumption that there exists some materially inexplicable higher being imposing purpose - That is what it boils down to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I mean 'real how', the 'deeper how'. It can answer the physical in terms of the physical, but it can't give metaphysical descriptions for exactly how, in the imminent sense of being itself, things happen.
How do birds sing? Not the mechanics of birdsong, but how is it that a metaphysical being of actual existence can bring forth the form of beauty and feelings of love within the substance of the soul. Science cannot address such questions. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
straggler writes: Exactly.
It depends what you mean.straggler writes: If one ask what is the purpose of the existence of the universe one could invoke a purposeful agent such as God. However one could also postulate the universe exist because it wants to. Or the status quo is the only alternative and existence is all there is.
If you are asking for the purpose of the existence of the universe then you are necessitating some purposeful agent that is not part of the universe. straggler writes: I do not know.
Who is this purposeful agent? stragger writes:
It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling? Why do you think this purposeful agent exists?straggler writes: Good question Stragger, Unless a purposeful agent exists how (or why) is it meaningful to ask for what purpose the universe exists?perhaps we individually derive the meaning from such questions. stragger writes: Yes. I like to believe so, otherwise I'd become very nihilist and depressed.
Unless a purposeful agent exists can purpose exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Numbers writes: It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling? This seems to be the main reason for invoking or assuming conscious purpose in the sort of cases under discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Straggler says:
This thread seems to have revealed that any insistence that "why" questions cannot be answered by science is ultimately based on the assumption that there is some non-physical thing imposing purpose on the physical world. Whether it is the assumption that human minds are dualistic in the sense of not being reducible to physical brains or the assumption that there exists some materially inexplicable higher being imposing purpose - That is what it boils down to. EXACTLY - you got it. Cavediver and Modulous and Bluegenes appear to be arguing from the vantage point that all "why" questions can eventually be explained by science. While this may eventually shown to be true, as of this day we have some other participants (Chuck77, Buzsaw, ICANT...you listed them a while back here) in EvC who can not think that way. We have to consider giving them their viewpoint or they may get discouraged and leave.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
bluegenes says:
Notice that how can be used in four different ways: 1. meaning 'in what way?':How did you make this sauce? How do you start the car? 2. with adjectives:How tall are you? How old is your house? 3. with much and many:How much are these tomatoes? How many people are coming to the party? 4. with other adverbs:How quickly can you read this? How often do you go to London? ...and all of these usages have descriptive answers that can be found through science. It's a great word for science.
The statement: A proper use of "why" is for questions of purpose is absolutely true. The statement: The proper use of "why" is for questions of purpose is absolutely false.
I agree, but that is not my point. My point is that the use of the word "why" is easily misunderstood, especially by creationists. It's a loaded word for them. We should avoid it when we can, which is every time, if we are careful. Edited by xongsmith, : we instead of wrong word here- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
xongsmith writes: EXACTLY - you got it. Cavediver and Modulous and Bluegenes appear to be arguing from the vantage point that all "why" questions can eventually be explained by science. Please, leave my name out of your interpretations. If by "vantage point" you meant "position", my view is that we have no way of knowing whether or not all why questions about reality can eventually be "explained" by science. As for questions like "why does god wear polka dot pants", I'm highly confident that they won't ever be correctly answered by science or anything else. Other "disciplines" could make up answers to such questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Zen Deist writes:
xongsmith writes: ... Why does the caged bird sing? Excellent use of the word "why", but still, not scientific. From a scientific view, birds sing the way they do because their parents that did before had more surviving offspring to perpetuate their song. ... That is how some birds that can sing have used song. Not all birds use song to attract mates, and some birds do not sing, so the link between song and mating is certainly not complete nor necessarily causal. Did mating come about after song? It is more likely that song was adapted to various uses, not that it exists for those purposes.
I did not restrict the song to mating there. I just said that there were more surviving offspring that used that song. Songs seem indeed to have various effects on the population. They may serve as warnings. They serve as markers of a territory. They may just announce to the population at large that this is a safe cool place here - a welcome mat, if you will. And so on. Correlation does not equal causation, though, and thus the surviving population through the years just may also have had this song in their genes. In fact most probably so, if I had to guess.
Science can ask how bird singing evolved, how the uses of bird song evolved, how it varies in different varieties and species, and how song is used today: these are proper questions that can be explored by science. Why bird singing exists is not. Perhaps you meant "Why bird singing exists in the first place is not."? Or why did the robin song use this particular note after the first 2 notes? What is the purpose of a B-flat here? Yes, there is no answer, and yes, we have no bananas for the monkey.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
bluegenes objects:
Please, leave my name out of your interpretations. If by "vantage point" you meant "position", my view is that we have no way of knowing whether or not all why questions about reality can eventually be "explained" by science. As for questions like "why does god wear polka dot pants", I'm highly confident that they won't ever be correctly answered by science or anything else. Quite so! Sorry to have implied that. I was not trying to claim that was anyone's viewpoint and didn't find the right words.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Cavediver and Modulous and Bluegenes appear to be arguing from the vantage point that all "why" questions can eventually be explained by science. I'll join bluegenes in an objection to being listed in this group (I'm sure cavediver will likewise object). My position is that science can and does answer 'why' questions.My position is that science is very good at doing it. My position is that science is the best way of answering many 'why' questions. There are plenty of 'why' questions that science cannot answer, for example: Why is Mozart better than Beethoven?Why do birds suddenly appear, every time, you are near? * Why do purposeful green ideas sleep furiously? Why does god threaten to torture married people who find people other than their spouse attractive? Why is it good to help a person who has been beaten and robbed? Why is evidence a useful tool in determining truth? Why does the imminent universal creative spirit cause things to be? Why did god create man? Why did god make the sky blue? Why is there something rather than nothing?** The easiest way to think of one for yourself is to ask a why question that assumes something that is not a scientific issue. Aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, theology etc. * unless it is actually true that birds suddenly appear when you are near, then the answer is likely to not only be because the birds want to be close to the person in question - which seems true by definition (unless the answer is that the person is suffering from confirmation bias or something, I guess) - but also science can in principle find out why birds want to be close to the person. ** Science may give an answer to this (though I am highly skeptical of this), but I have a feeling that whatever answer may be found, someone can easily just ask of it '...but why?', for infinity Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024