Summations Only

In reply to Message 229You seem to be accepting of the (frankly indisputable) fact that science does ask 'why' questions whilst suggesting that it shouldn't. Why shouldn't science ask why questions? Well why do humans (whether they be "obnoxiously snarky kids" or otherwise) have a tendency to relentlessly ask such questions? Is it because they have a psychological proclivity to seek human-like intent and purpose? This is a 'why' question and one that science is the best method of investigating. No? But surely it depends on the question being asked?How do people ask 'why' questions? Why do people ask 'why' questions?The first is a matter of linguistics. The second is a matter of psychology. The two are very different questions. But both are best answered by science. Right?'Why' is not just prevalent in science. I would suggest it is absolutely frikkin fundamental to the whole endevour.

quote:

---

Again begging the question. What teleology? 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.

​

If there is no "purpose", there is only the natural world, and then all concepts are ultimately reducible to science. To claim that questions of teleology are outside the realm of science is to claim that there exists a relam outside of science... and there isn't

---

I don't mean to "beg the question" with these statements. I mean to say that if there is a realm outside of science, then (by definition) it cannot be investigated by science. If there is such a thing as "purpose" or teleology, then it lies in a realm outside of science.So is there such a thing as purpose? Is there a realm outside of science? I believe there is, you believe there isn't. Helen Quinn leaves the question open. (I wonder what she thinks about this? I'll try to remember to ask next time I see her.) All of us are scientists, but our science cannot answer these questions. These are questions for theology or philosophy.

HelloScience indisputably does ask 'why' questions. Anyone who disputes this simply needs to scan the peer reviewed scientific literature for such questions (and corresponding 'because' answers) before admitting that they are wrong. It really is that simple (to coin a phrase).A mildly tangential question is - Should science ask 'why' questions? In other words - Should the question 'why' be restricted to purposeful intent rather than cover reason and cause as well?I don't see any reason for science to insist on such a restriction. Certainly science doesn't currently restrict itself in this sense.AbE - It is also worth saying that science does indeed cover purposeful intent. Why do humans exhibit the behaviour that they are observed to do is a scientific question.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Why?

Who says so?The fact is that scientific peer reviewed literature is full of 'why' questions pertaining to cause and reason rather than purpose. Furthermore scientific peer reviewed literature is full of conclusions phrased in the form of 'because' answers.So who exactly is it that is asserting that this is 'improper'.....?You and Dawn Bertot and who else?

Why? Or rather, for what reason? Because it's easier and quicker to use three words than one? It never has been restricted in that way inside or outside science. Why attempt to force useless arbitrary changes on language? Should "when" be restricted to the past, and not used to refer to the future? Should we stop using "where" in questions like "where in your life did you go wrong?" and restrict it to physical geography?Also, when we ask the question, how are we supposed to know the answer and whether or not it involves purpose? Someone comes into the room with wet hair, and you ask "why is your hair wet"? The answer could be that she was caught in the rain outside, or it could be that she's decided to sport the new, fashionable wet look on purpose. But you can't go wrong with a good old word like why, which asks for any reason, cause or purpose. Yes. I pointed out that science does actually sometimes concern itself with purpose on the thread where this started, and Modulous and I have both been putting the point here. In other animals as well as us. Zoology, psychology, archaeology and neurology all could ask questions about it. And indeed, it's their job to find out what it actually is and how and why it emerged.So, that leads me on to a point I was going to bring up. Mechanistic (reason, cause) why questions can end up being asked about purpose itself. On purpose.

I know you don't - but then you are slighlty more... nuanced, than many of our other theistic friends here Questions to be discussed by theology and philosophy, sure. But never answered. If an answer is required, only personal faith will provide that, with all its inherent subjectivity. So to claim that science can answer the "how" but it takes religion/theology/philosophy to *answer* the "why" is disingenous at best.

Theology and Philosophy are useful tools to decide what questions to ask though.

Why is science a superior method of investigating reality?Discuss.Can science answer that question?

HUH?It is a good tool to answer some questions related to the mechanics and engineering of reality.

What do you mean by the "mechanics and engineering of reality"....?

Science can tell us why chairs hold us off the floor but not where to sit; how our brain functions but not what to think.

OK. I am almost convinced. So (if not science) what is it that does tell us "where to sit" or "what to think"....?What area of investigation do such questions belong to if not science? And how does this relate to the scientificness (or otherwise) of 'why' questions posed in this thread?

Only personal opinion can tell us where to sit or what to think although certain tools such as theology and philosophy can help us determine what questions are important to ask.The problem is that the term "why" has so many possible nuances that I think this thread is pretty much doomed from the gitgo.

So why do we hold the personal opinios that we do?Is this not a scientific question? [qs=jar]The problem is that the term "why" has so many possible nuances that I think this thread is pretty much doomed from the gitgo.