Science answers to "how?", we need another system to answer the "why?" questions.
  • M777
    129
    Have listened to Dawkins rant that science can give an answer to how the mountains were formed, but asking why have they formed is a silly question.

    Am I the only one to understand that the "why?" question is invalid only when looking at it through a scientific framework. So it is not that the question is silly, rather the framework is inappropriate.

    Like trying to import a text file with a beautiful poem into a script as an integer. The script will give you a null, which you would interpret as 'there's nothing there', while in reality you are using an incorrect framework to evaluate it.

    What do you think?
    M777 Options
  • 180 Proof
    14.1k
    It's "silly" to ask a stone star or cosmos for its "motives" or "intentions". This is what why questions are: requests for subjective information; thus, it's silly – a category mistake – to address a nonsubjective entity with a why question (pace Aristotle re: teleology).
    180 Proof Options
  • L'éléphant
    1.4k
    Am I the only one to understand that the "why?" question is invalid only when looking at it through a scientific framework. So it is not that the question is silly, rather the framework is inappropriate. — M777
    Funny in science, the why overlaps the how and in an attempt to satisfy questions of the why, they would proceed to again explain a phenomenon in terms of how. Why does it rain? Because when water vapor collects in the clouds and precipitation....
    L'éléphant Options
  • jgill
    3.6k
    Funny in science, the why overlaps the how and in an attempt to satisfy questions of the why, they would proceed to again explain a phenomenon in terms of how. — L'éléphant

    Yes. Lines of demarcation are vague.
    jgill Options
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Science

    1. Explains (causal): The Challenger space shuttle blew up. How (explanation)?

    2. Predicts: Such and such will happen and this is why (proof).

    The confusion between an explanation (how) & an argument (why) is a well-known issue, possibly because of the word "because" (ambiguous) used to introduce both the explanans & the premises.
    Agent Smith Options
  • 180 Proof
    14.1k
    ↪Agent Smith
    There's no "confusion" ...

    How A involuntarily happens (i.e. changes).

    Why B voluntarily decided and/or acted.
    180 Proof Options
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    There's no "confusion" ...

    How A involuntarily happens (i.e. changes).

    Why B voluntarily decided and/or acted.     — 180 Proof

    Not sure what ya mean but going by your track record, you're probably right! :cool:
    Agent Smith Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

Sign In Create Account

Categories