The "Why" Questions

[jeremyp]

In other threads, it is frequently asserted that science can't answer the why questions but only the how questions.

Some examples of why questions:

• What is our purpose?
• What (or who) created the Universe?
• Do we have a soul?

Some examples of how questions

• Why is the sky dark?
• Why have there been so many species of life on Earth?
• Why is the Sun so hot?

Clearly the term "why question" is poorly chosen, but leaving that aside, what makes a "why" question?  Is there some quality they have or don't have that makes them "why" questions or is it simply that religions are happy to make up answers to difficult questions when science is not?

Actually, at one level, I think science can provide answers to some of the why questions.  For example, the answer to the first one above, according to science, is "none" or perhaps "we make our own purpose".

It would be helpful, I think, if the religionists here could give some of the why questions they think science can't answer and the answers that their religion gives and how they know the answer is correct. 

[Udayana]

Isn't this essentially about falsifiability?

If we can come up with falsifiable answers to questions they are "how" questions. This implies that we can build a model that works for the data observed so far and make useful, verifiable, predictions.

If we are unable to define the terms used in the question with any confidence, such that answers cannot be shown to be wrong, then it is a "why" question.

[Leonard James]

Jeremy, you are opening Pandora's box! 

[Outrider]

In other threads, it is frequently asserted that science can't answer the why questions but only the how questions.

Some examples of why questions:

• What is our purpose?
• What (or who) created the Universe?
• Do we have a soul?

Some examples of how questions

• Why is the sky dark?
• Why have there been so many species of life on Earth?
• Why is the Sun so hot?

Clearly the term "why question" is poorly chosen, but leaving that aside, what makes a "why" question?  Is there some quality they have or don't have that makes them "why" questions or is it simply that religions are happy to make up answers to difficult questions when science is not?

Actually, at one level, I think science can provide answers to some of the why questions.  For example, the answer to the first one above, according to science, is "none" or perhaps "we make our own purpose".

It would be helpful, I think, if the religionists here could give some of the why questions they think science can't answer and the answers that their religion gives and how they know the answer is correct.

It's not that there are different meanings for 'why'. Why does not mean 'how', it's just that there are some 'why' questions where we know the 'how' and presume that's sufficient response. It just leads back to 'why' did the precursor conditions happen.

Why, in the absence of some evidence of a conscious choice, is begging the question. 'Why' is the sky dark makes no sense - nobody 'chose' to make the sky dark, no-one had options and decided darkness was a better decision.

O.

[jeremyp]

Jeremy, you are opening Pandora's box! 

I am aware of that. 

[jeremyp]

It's not that there are different meanings for 'why'. Why does not mean 'how', it's just that there are some 'why' questions where we know the 'how' and presume that's sufficient response. It just leads back to 'why' did the precursor conditions happen.

Please try not to get hung up too much on the way I chose to phrase the "how" questions.  The fact that "why question" is really not adequate to describe the "why questions" is not the main thrust of what I'm asking.

Why, in the absence of some evidence of a conscious choice, is begging the question. 'Why' is the sky dark makes no sense

I beg to differ.  That particular question is known as Olbers' Paradox.  The fact that the sky is dark rules out the possibility that the Universe is both infinite in extent and eternal.  We have an answer to it which is that the Universe is not eternal.

It's true that we don't know why there was a Big Bang and, in spite of the first word of that sentence, I don't think that is a "why question" either (other opinions are available). 

[Sriram]

The 'why' refers to ultimate philosophical questions.  Why the big bang....why humans...why intelligent beings in the first place....and so on. But it can be a relevant question in science also.

The Anthropic Principle for example  does refer to the 'why' question.   Why only those constants in nature that lead to intelligent beings....and not others?  That is a meaningful 'why' question and some scientists have attempted to come up with many theories from that...such as Parallel universes....Simulated Universes.....String Theory ....Consciousness as participating in the creation and so on. 

[Outrider]

The Anthropic Principle for example  does refer to the 'why' question.   Why only those constants in nature that lead to intelligent beings....and not others?

How many universes have you sampled to find that they only come in a form that is sufficient for intelligent life?

O.

[Udayana]

The 'why' refers to ultimate philosophical questions.  Why the big bang....why humans...why intelligent beings in the first place....and so on. But it can be a relevant question in science also.
..

These "why" questions are asking about "purpose" or "meaning", and do not have answers that can be objectively verified, at least by humans.

[Leonard James]

These "why" questions are asking about "purpose" or "meaning", and do not have answers that can be objectively verified, at least by humans.

What other form of life are you inferring is capable of it?

[Udayana]

None in particular .. just something as yet unknown.

[Shaker]

If something is unknown, and you understand what that word plainly means, you can't even know if it exists in the first place.

[Udayana]

What I meant was: up to now we have no way of answering these questions, we don't even know if they make sense. But there is always a possibility that some other creature exists or will exist somewhere, that may be able to investigate those questions. They could be some future form of humans, or some alien lifeform with better brains than ours or different senses or equipment.

[jeremyp]

I see the Christians are steering clear of this thread. Why is that, I wonder?

[Shaker]

I see the Christians are steering clear of this thread. Why is that, I wonder?

Well it isn't as though we don't already know their single answer to everything, is it?

[Hope]

Clearly the term "why question" is poorly chosen, but leaving that aside, what makes a "why" question?  Is there some quality they have or don't have that makes them "why" questions or is it simply that religions are happy to make up answers to difficult questions when science is not?

The 'why' questions re almost always philosophical questions that have answers outside of the purely physical realm.#

This web page is quite fun in how it deals with such q's - http://tinyurl.com/pw5cpb3

Actually, at one level, I think science can provide answers to some of the why questions.  For example, the answer to the first one above, according to science, is "none" or perhaps "we make our own purpose".

And where does science even remotely suggest either of these answers, jeremy?

[It would be helpful, I think, if the religionists here could give some of the why questions they think science can't answer and the answers that their religion gives and how they know the answer is correct.

Having been up since 3 this morning, not sure that my brain,let alone my body, is up to the challenge of that right now - but I'll ponder it a while.

[jeremyp]

And where does science even remotely suggest either of these answers, jeremy?

It's quite simple: humans are the product of an undirected process called Evolution.  There's no purpose to us except to propagate our genes.  Any purpose we perceive is of our own making.

[Having been up since 3 this morning, not sure that my brain,let alone my body, is up to the challenge of that right now - but I'll ponder it a while.

Take your time.

[Shaker]

It's quite simple: humans are the product of an undirected process called Evolution. There's no purpose to us except to propagate our genes.

I realise you're probably taking the evolution's-eye view here but from the human perspective I would say not even that, since it would entail that those who don't propagate their genes have no purpose, a group which would include (amongst innumerable others) Jane Austen, Wilhelm Rontgen, Beethoven, Isaac Newton ...

Take your time.

He'll need to

[jeremyp]

It's quite simple: humans are the product of an undirected process called Evolution. There's no purpose to us except to propagate our genes.

I realise you're probably taking the evolution's-eye view here but from the human perspective I would say not even that, since it would entail that those who don't propagate their genes have no purpose, a group which would include (amongst innumerable others) Jane Austen, Wilhelm Rontgen, Beethoven, Isaac Newton ...

My use of the word "purpose" was somewhat imprecise.  I probably should have said "function" because "purpose" can imply some sort of agency.  In reality, there is none.  There is no evolution's eye view.  The genes express a phenotype that just happens to make it possible for them to propagate and so they do.

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

I believe.... the very fact that complexity arose and humans have arisen....shows a direction and a purpose. We can keep saying that... 'given enough time, humans can arise due to simple genetic variation and NS'....but this has not been established beyond doubt. It is just a belief. 

All emergent properties that arise at various points through the evolution of any species....indicate an intervention and course correction directed by some agency. 

I believe some form of consciousness guides organisms through subtle means, to evolve in certain ways. Just as our own unconscious mind guides and directs our decisions without our own knowledge.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Leonard James]

All emergent properties that arise at various points through the evolution of any species....indicate an intervention and course correction directed by some agency. 

If they do, then that agency is not directing us on any defined course, because emergent properties include the bad ones as well as the good. It is we humans ourselves who have to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Give me an example of one of these 'directed' emergent properties, and I think I will be able to show you an equal and opposite one.

[SusanDoris]

Hi everyone,

I believe.... the very fact that complexity arose and humans have arisen....shows a direction and a purpose. We can keep saying that... 'given enough time, humans can arise due to simple genetic variation and NS'....but this has not been established beyond doubt. It is just a belief. 

All emergent properties that arise at various points through the evolution of any species....indicate an intervention and course correction directed by some agency. 

I believe some form of consciousness guides organisms through subtle means, to evolve in certain ways. Just as our own unconscious mind guides and directs our decisions without our own knowledge.

Cheers.

Sriram

That is woolly nonsense! By all means, believe it till the cows come home, but do NOT teach children that it is true.

[Sriram]

All emergent properties that arise at various points through the evolution of any species....indicate an intervention and course correction directed by some agency. 

If they do, then that agency is not directing us on any defined course, because emergent properties include the bad ones as well as the good. It is we humans ourselves who have to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Give me an example of one of these 'directed' emergent properties, and I think I will be able to show you an equal and opposite one.

What do you mean ...'not directing us on any defined course'?!   From bacteria...to reptiles...to primates...to you and me punching away at computer keys...is a very well defined course IMO!! 

I agree that it is not exactly a straight line from bacteria to humans. Lot of meandering about and hits and misses....but that is only from our limited human perspective.  What do we know?!

The clear direction is very much there however. 

[Leonard James]

All emergent properties that arise at various points through the evolution of any species....indicate an intervention and course correction directed by some agency. 

If they do, then that agency is not directing us on any defined course, because emergent properties include the bad ones as well as the good. It is we humans ourselves who have to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Give me an example of one of these 'directed' emergent properties, and I think I will be able to show you an equal and opposite one.

What do you mean ...'not directing us on any defined course'?!   From bacteria...to reptiles...to primates...to you and me punching away at computer keys...is a very well defined course IMO!! 

I agree that it is not exactly a straight line from bacteria to humans. Lot of meandering about and hits and misses....but that is only from our limited human perspective.  What do we know?!

The clear direction is very much there however.

Don't be obtuse! You were talking about some "agency" directing the course of evolution, not natural selection itself, which imo is the sole guiding force we are subjected to.

[Sriram]

All emergent properties that arise at various points through the evolution of any species....indicate an intervention and course correction directed by some agency. 

If they do, then that agency is not directing us on any defined course, because emergent properties include the bad ones as well as the good. It is we humans ourselves who have to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Give me an example of one of these 'directed' emergent properties, and I think I will be able to show you an equal and opposite one.

What do you mean ...'not directing us on any defined course'?!   From bacteria...to reptiles...to primates...to you and me punching away at computer keys...is a very well defined course IMO!! 

I agree that it is not exactly a straight line from bacteria to humans. Lot of meandering about and hits and misses....but that is only from our limited human perspective.  What do we know?!

The clear direction is very much there however.

Don't be obtuse! You were talking about some "agency" directing the course of evolution, not natural selection itself, which imo is the sole guiding force we are subjected to.

Alright! Alright! Let me leave it at that. Thanks.