|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does science ask and answer "why" questions? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Ah, no, you still seem to not understand.
Yes, it is possible to change what I think and believe, in fact I do it quite often. Today's sky is much nicer than yesterday's sky. But I said that it was the ideal that is causeless, not what I think or believe but rather love, honor, faith, GOD that are causeless.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 I said that it was the ideal that is causeless, not what I think or believe but rather love, honor, faith, GOD that are causeless. Are you arguing for a form of Plato's forms? Where we experience a reflection or copy of love, but that the essence of love exists independent of us?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2507 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
Zen Deist writes: Hi bluegenes, still struggling? No. I speak English, and I understand the uses of the word "why". I take it that you are attempting to support questions (1) and (2). 1)Science doesn't ask/answer why questions 2)The proper use of "why" is to answer questions of purpose Once again, you're imposing your own incorrect restrictions on the the word "why" in order to waffle on about it. While you keep doing that, your posts are meaningless. You are assuming (2) in order to make the case for (1).
Zen writes: If you are satisfied with an incomplete, tentative and partial answer then wail away. Stop fantasizing about me struggling and wailing. It doesn't make your case. Here are two complete, non-tentative facts. 1) Science doesn't ask/answer why questions is a false claim. 2) The proper use of "why" is to answer questions of purpose is linguistic nonsense and a false claim. Now do you agree with those two facts?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Not arguing for it, rather saying I believe that is true just as i believe I am a soul separate from my body and that GOD exists.
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:
|
These ambiguous "ideals" of yours are not what I or Mod or anybody else started out asking you about at the outset of this discussion.
jar writes: Message 49 How can science observe why I think something? jar writes: Yes, I am saying that the personal preference can be studied by science until the cows come home and still be unable to tell me any reason why I hold that preference. Straggler writes: But your preference for a blue sky (which is what we were talking about) requires your brain to physically exist doesn't it? jar writes: And as I said, I am not at all sure and in fact believe that such things do not require my brain to exist. Straggler writes: Do you accept that changes to your physical brain (e.g. selective lobotomisation or mind altering drugs) will change the preferences that you hold? jar writes: Sure. But I also find that totally irrelevant and unimportant to the issue. Straggler writes: Well I am baffled as to how one can reconcile the fact that changes to ones physical brain can shape ones preferences with the belief that ones preferences are independent of physical brains. How do you reconcile this? jar writes: I do not try to reconcile those things. Now it turns out that you are a dualist and all of your original assertions are at least consistent with that flawed belief system. That you are unable to reconcile these beliefs with the demonstrable facts is now obvious. Frankly jar it's the same same old with you. You start out in a discussion making some trite assertions and treating anyone who questions these as if they are just too silly to see what is obviously true. Then after much effort on the part of others it slowly becomes clear that these original assertions of yours are based on some unsupportable starting assumption (dualism in this particular instance). Then all further objections are met with your standard fallback position of (to paraphrase) "It's what I believe, it's what I believe, you can't tell me what to believe". Maybe if you started out discussions by making clear that your starting points are nothing more than the consequences of your baseless beliefs a lot of time could be saved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Of course I am a dualist and I still see no evidence that science can explain why I think something.
Science can address the mechanics, the neurons, the environment, my history, many of the mechanics but that still does not explain why I think what I think. The problem is the meaning of the term why; you seem to see it as process, synonymous with how, while why can also mean purpose.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
jar writes:
That is because you refuse to look: and I still see no evidence that science can explain why I think something.quote:Hiding from reality is not conducive to an accurate understanding of it. If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Sorry but knowing the process and mechanics does not explain the question which is "why I think something".
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
jar writes: Sorry but knowing the process and mechanics does explain the question which is "why I think something". Sorry but knowing the process and mechanics does not explain the question which is "why I think something". I can even produce examples of chemicals affecting people's preferences, but I know that you "do not try to reconcile those things". Your baseless assertion is not supported by any evidence.And your refusal to confront conflicting evidence is indicative of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
No, it tells me how I think something.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
jar writes: And it tells you why. No, it tells me how I think something. Your preferences are not separate from the physical world - they are part of your brain.What happens to your brain affects your preferences. If you had a car crash and damaged specific parts of your brain you could spend the rest of your life loving Justin Bieber's music."Why do you love Justin Bieber's music?" "Because I had a car crash and got brain damage." Science can study and identify the how and the why. Your arguments have rapidly drifted into little more than a feeble repetition of "Nuh-uh!"This convinces me that you are unable to substantiate your claim. If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So you claim.
And I have never tried to substantiate any claim, rather simply presented the facts of what I believe.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Sorry but knowing the process and mechanics does not explain the question which is "why I think something".
Then knowing the processes and mechanics of how precipitation forms and falls to the Earth does not explain the question of why it rains. Then knowing the processes and mechanics of how oxygen and hydrogen combine to produce water does not explain the question of why water molecules exist. I could go on and on, but I think you get the drift.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I get your drift but see no relevance.
Rain falling is purely mechanics; rain does not decide to fall. I'm getting ready to go out for sum lunch and considering which fountain pen to take with me; the Yard-o-Led Smythson, the Yard-o-Led Viceroy Pocket Victorian or the Grifos Nyloe Checkerboard Guilloche. 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.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Rain falling is purely mechanics; So is brain activity. You want to selectively exclude brain activity from other natural and physical processes for no other reason than it pleasing your beliefs.
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. Why can't it?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024