Peanut Gallery

Hi, Straggler.I've had another day to think about it (between the important things I was doing), and I'm realizing how hard it is to actually come up with something clear and precise.Whatever I come up with, I still kind of rely on a discussion partner who can separate the details on their own, or on a more in-depth follow-up discussion, like Modulous gave.Maybe it isn't as much your fault as I thought.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

If your conclusion is correct it mainly provides yet another glowing reference for Modulous.Curse him and his clear and patient ways making the rest of us look bad......

In what sense do you use the word 'why'?Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Why is my neighbor's new car Red? Because he likes that color, not because the paint used on the car makes my retinas perceive the car as colored Red. What my retinas do with the pigment of the paint on his car is a description of how things happen.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Why? Semantic pedantic bollocks. Science can and does answer "why questions" all the time.But if you are referring to a specific sort of nonsensical "why question" here is Dawkins on that subject:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSZ_fsG5uMg

That didn't answer the question. In what sense do you use the word 'why'?Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Can I ask both yourself and Xongsmith to agree that 'why' and 'how' are interchangeable in common parlance.I think that you both agree that science doesn't answer 'why?' in the 'meaning of life' sense.
But people do often say (e.g.) "I know why my father is ill. He has glandular fever."
(This is correct use in a normal conversation, but inaccurate in a scientific discussion.)When posting in forums it is easy to forget to be completely precise over our words, because in spoken conversations we can take much more for granted and convey extra information using 'physical' means.The fact that Jon is wanting to equivocate over the meaning of 'why' should be enough of a clue for you both to realise that you are having a fruitless arguement (especially when it was just an honest mistake to start with).I hope this doesn't sound patronising, as it is not meant to be.
I would just like your discussion to continue as it was, without taking what is IMHO a 'wrong turn' in the debate.

Yes.And very often in scientifc parlance too. Indeed. But what does? Philosophy maybe....? Theology? I don't think so.

I view the question "What is the meaning of life?" much the same as I view the question "Does god exist?" - as an ignostic.
You might define your life as "The time between birth and death" but that seems to be too impirical to allow the question "What does it mean?" to have any possible answer.
(Much like Dawkins example of "What colour is jealousy?".)

Hi, Straggler.I actually let Modulous convince me, because I know it annoys you so!

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Of course I agree they are in common parlance, and I agree with Straggler they often are interchanged in casual parlance within the scientific community.But in this forum, given the types of people we get who argue from the creo side, I think it is best to stick to the actual difference in a formal way on a consistent basis, so as to avoid self-inflicted pitfalls with those types of debaters at a later date.In other words, we should be as precise as we can.So that is the why of it.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Sorry - here & I thought I was being pretty clear.Perhaps you can go into more detail over what it is that you seek from me, since I must have goofed and thought a simple example of an emotional reason being different from a boring scientific description would do. Ok:Think of a parent's lament "Why didn't God save my child?" "Why" seeks to find the intent behind things. The scientific "How" doesn't care about intent behind things, in fact any efforts to divine intent are usually overwhelmingly minimized during the investigation.For example, the issue of survival of the fittest organism is easy prey to this sloppy convolving of these 2 terms. That is how we get the whole incorrect notion that some organisms are better or "more highly evolved" or superior to other organisms, as if there was a progression from lesser to better species. There is no such thing. There is no such thing as "forward evolution" or "backward evolution". There is no preferred direction before the population is exposed. Organisms flourish or go extinct according to the cold, uncaring calculus of their ability to procreate future generations. Nature sheds no tears when a species goes extinct. There is no "why" of a species going extinct ("God musta got really pissed off at the Dodo, man!"), there is only the "how" of it happening. And this shows why I think we should be as precise & careful as we can in this forum.A small secretary's desk of furniture for Straggler:For me, one of the absolute worst folksongs is the one about the Unicorn. I hate it when I get roped into a group sing-along of that song. But I guess, for me, it's more of the anger of perpetuating the silliness of the Noah's Ark myth than the smarmy attempts to anthropomorphize the "why" of the Unicorn getting left behind.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

As I can see it, there are at least two different senses for the word 'why'. In one, we question on 'causation'; in another, we question on 'purpose'. There may yet be other senses, but these appear to be the closest to the two involved in the Straggler-xongsmith discussion.Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

See Message 658 above; I think you'll find it helpful in clearing up some confusions.Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

I wasn't confused. But, yes. Nice summation.I DO think it is important to stick to a known and established terminology in this forum. Especially when taking on the likes of some of these posters here, like RAZD. The word "why" should be avoided in our dissertations & ruminations, unless it cannot be avoided.