Hi kbertsche,
I do believe you and Catholic Scientist got it. Context is very important to good communication.
"Why" has a number of different valid meanings, as you point out. But as CS says, when the context makes a contrast between "how" and "why", it is generally distinguishing between mechanism and purpose. When someone claims that "science answers the "how" questions and religion answers the "why" questions" this is the distinction that he is trying to make. I agree with CS that this meaning should be so obvious from the context of the statement itself that it needs no further explanation.
Another place where context is important is when the 5W's + H are discussed:
Five Ws - Wikipedia
quote:
In journalism, the Five Ws (also known as the Five Ws (and one H), or the Six Ws) is a concept in news style, research, and in police investigations that are regarded as basics in information-gathering.[1] It is a formula for getting the "full" story on something. The maxim of the Five W's (and one H) is that for a report to be considered complete it must answer a checklist of six questions, each of which comprises an interrogative word:[2]
- Who is it about?
- What happened?
- Where did it take place?
- When did it take place?
- Why did it happen?
- How did it happen?
The principle underlying the maxim is that each question should elicit a factual answer facts necessary to include for a report to be considered complete.
Note that this applies to research and police investigations, and not just journalism.
Note that the answers should be different, as they answer different aspects of the situation.
A "how it happened" answer should not be used for "why it happened"
Research - Wikipedia
quote:
Research can be defined as the search for knowledge, or as any systematic investigation, with an open mind, to establish novel facts, solve new or existing problems, prove new ideas, or develop new theories. The primary purposes of basic research (as opposed to applied research) are documentation, discovery, interpretation, or the research and development of methods and systems for the advancement of human knowledge. Approaches to research depend on epistemologies, which vary considerably both within and between humanities and sciences.
The five Ws + H are good methodology to focus your research.
Suppose you enter your Grandmother's house, hear a teapot whistling, and ask, "Why is the teapot whistling?" Someone could answer in terms of thermodynamics, fluid flow, the physical properties of water, acoustic properties of the nozzle on the kettle, etc. The answer would be a perfectly valid mechanistic answer of "why" the teapot is boiling. But someone could also answer that the teapot is boiling because Grandma is thirsty and wants her afternoon tea. This answer is just as valid and accurate as the first. One answer addresses mechanism, and the other addresses purpose.
Curiously, your first answer actually tells us
how it happened that the whistle sounded, the second answer tells us a part of
why it happened, a part of the purpose behind the whistling of the kettle.
Even more curiously, however, this purpose does
not fully answer the question of why the kettle is whistling. Thirst can be quenched with cold water, tea can be made with cold water ("sunshine" tea) or with water boiled in a pot or from an "instant hot water" tap. In addition, a whistling kettle can be used to boil water for coffee or soup or cold remedies. In scientific parlance there is no direct correlation between a whistling kettle and making tea or with making tea and the quenching of thirst.
Birds, people, animals with brains can have purpose. That purpose does not necessarily fully explain the question.
Yes, we can scientifically discuss (observe and record) parts of why birds sing: one answer proposed on this thread is that birds sing to attract a mate (others could be to protect territory or announce presence). That too is
purpose, but again this is not a full answer to the question, it does not answer the question of
why did it happen that birds can sing.
There are bird species that don't sing, yet they are not handicapped in their existence compared to bird species that do sing.
There are also birds that sing and don't attract mates.
Thus saying that birds sing to attract mates does not answer the question of why birds sing: mate attraction can be accomplished without it, and singing can also occur without attracting mates. This does not explain
why birds sing.
It is a bit like the
post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy, the
complex cause logical fallacy, and the
part for the whole logical fallacy all mixed together. Just because you know a (small) part of the answer does not mean that you know (all) the answer.
Science may be able to discuss partial answers, based on observations, assumptions, and inference, but that does not mean that science provides the full answer, or that it ever can. There are certain details in a complete answer that science is not equipped to determine.
Why did it happen that birds can sing?
Why did it happen that the sky appears blue?
These are essentially untestable\unfalsifiable aspects of the "why" issue, and thus cannot be determined through science.
By contrast, science can do very well at answering the
how questions, and while those answers may be incomplete, there is no significant reason that would suggest that more details can be developed through science.
How did it happen that birds can sing?
How did it happen that the sky appears blue?
These can be answered through science.
Enjoy.
Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty
Edited by Zen Deist, : link
Edited by Zen Deist, : rearranged a bit
™ Version 4.2
