Summations Only

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

Straggler says: 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.

bluegenes says: ...and all of these usages have descriptive answers that can be found through science. It's a great word for science. 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

Zen Deist writes: 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. 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.

bluegenes objects: 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.

Modulous writes: I hope he does or accepts my mistake.I'm not able to come up with the right words. It has to do with "God did it" sorts of answers. For example your Consider a painter selecting to mix on her palette a certain color. If we has the entire brain scan by equipment advanced enough to record all manner of things from the moment of hew consciousness leading up to the moment she went to make the color, is it not possible that - with the in-depth understanding via the equipment - scientists could explain the color and give a "why" for the reason she made it?Is this a free will issue? Is the equipment revealing how she is predestined to pick that mix of pigments to get that color and why she likes that color?Is the extent to which science cannot answer a "why" question linked to the extent that free will is a factor?

bluegenes says: okay then.In my view, another use of this board would be to promote understanding, to provide a common, or at least unambiguous language to further that in terms all can accept. Exactly, but they do use it differently than evolutionists.

Straggler argues with CS: While this whole thread has more or less supported my viewpoint (standing safely some distance from the fairway), I singled out this particular exchange to nail it. Straggler has admitted there is a problem (not necessarily with his view, but with others).....Consider the recently (at least in my lifetime) outlawed word "inflammable". It was a perfectly good word until the attempts of student citizens to apply rules of English produced a disastrous result: incongruent meant not congruent, incompetent meant not competent, incomplete meant not complete, inoperable meant not operable. Therefore, for some, inflammable meant not flammable - you can hardly blame these persons for the stupidity of the English language! In the end, the decision was made to ban use of the word on trucks & containers and so on. Flammable was perfectly clear enough, walking around on it's own recognizance.When there is sufficient ambiguity, then perhaps there may be reason to avoid usage of that word. This goes quintuple for the various activities under the umbrella of scientific research.The issue is whether there is sufficient ambiguity. Now Straggler and bluegenes and Modulous and I and many others here can wade through this ambiguity and dismiss it without a ripple, just like we can connect the dots of tree rings, fossils and all manner of scientific equipment that convinces us of the strength of TOE. But surely we notice there are others here that are so convinced. We have trouble understanding why they are not convinced. How, we ask ourselves, is it that people who do not see that 2+2=4, no matter how many times we try, cannot agree?This is why (chuckle) the use of the word "why" should be minimized in this particular forum where we know we have a varied and valued array of different participating perspectives.SIDEBAR from Straggler: But in fact (!!!) the scientific investigation of these events uses and relies on tests that can be repeated. Fingerprint analysis can be done again. All of the evidence leading to the evolution of homo sapiens can be found again. Echoes of the Big Bang that led to the Theory of the Big Bang can be examined again. Structural analysis of fallen buildings after earthquakes revealing faulty design can be repeated. Quantum fluctuations of the instantiated mindset at the moment that led Joe to use a bluish yellow in his painting....this is more generally referred to as the deployment of Free Will. Do you, Straggler, believe in Free Will? If we strap all these electrical/chemical/visual detectors using the latest MRI++ advances with Javacationisms about our skulls will we eventually reduce Free Will to Determinism?Or won't there be - at least ultimately due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle itself - a point at which this sort of fantasmagorical equipment cannot help you?