Asking why is tricky

[Shiniyami]

When looking around the topics here I noticed many people asking 'why' in a context other than human intention. It seems to me that when you ask why you unintentionally/intentionally imply intent. And when this is applied to anything outside the realm of 'human' intent (like nature etc.), would imply that a entity has reason for something to be as it is. This would in the worst case imply the existence of a deity where this was not intended or founded.
I think when referring to matters where a intention is not to be implied asking 'how' would be more appropriate.

So yes I think it is often flawed or at least tricky to ask 'why' certain things are the way they are.

[owleye]

When looking around the topics here I noticed many people asking 'why' in a context other than human intention. It seems to me that when you ask why you unintentionally/intentionally imply intent. And when this is applied to anything outside the realm of 'human' intent (like nature etc.), would imply that a entity has reason for something to be as it is. This would in the worst case imply the existence of a deity where this was not intended or founded.
I think when referring to matters where a intention is not to be implied asking 'how' would be more appropriate.

So yes I think it is often flawed or at least tricky to ask 'why' certain things are the way they are.

I think you're right in a way, though instead of "human intention" we may be thinking of responses to the 'why' question as any agent. Thus, when a child asks why is the sky blue, it might not be a scientific question at all, but one in which he or she would be satisfied with the response that some agent caused it to be so.

And, of course, because we typically try to give a scientific (to the best we can of course) answers to these questions, additional questions will continue in exactly the same way to these kind of responses. Given this, then, it doesn't trouble us at all and indeed, it may be highly satisfying to us, when at the end of such inquiries we give the answer: "God caused it all." Moreover, when in retort someone asks: "Well, what caused God?" this is brushed off seeing as how we now reached some agent that is the original source.

Despite this, however, explanations are demanded all the time and we do expect answers forthcoming that aren't always about agents. We want to know the cause of cancer, for example, or why the leaves are falling earlier this year or why is it so damn hot today. Yes, we may invent agents such as germs or bugs, or the gods being angry, but in the end, we expect answers that have some scientific basis. Those who wish to remain in the womb of innocence, comforted by those around them who live in the same state, well, more power to them. For the rest of us, however, I'd like to know why I'm having difficulty maintaining my physical condition as I grow old.

James

[Forest_Dump]

I definitely agree that a focus on "how" questions is more scientific while implying "why" questions may entail "intent". But I also think some caution is necessary here. Most typically in science the focus is indeed on the "how" (mechanistic and thus reflected in questions in science about the methodology whether this be the scientific method or the methodology of specific experiments, data gathering, etc.). My concern here, however, is in that when we don't ask about the "whys" in science (e.g., why do we pursue this topic but not that) we may loose sight of the "whys" science and specific kinds of scientific disciplines, etc., are pursued. I am not sure science is or ever has been free of values which, I have argued, are too close to religion in origin, etc., to ignore.

[Shiniyami]

But when one asks why pursue one aspect and not another one enters the realm of human intent and the asking of why would become relevant again. Even if human intent could be argued to be in nature irrelevant. But you do raise a interesting point as to nature of science itself. Science is like 'all' things man-made riddled with intent.
But as far as the religious aspects of science go. I think the problem lies with education. Science has no absolutes yet absolutes is what is thought. Then there is economic interests in science. A example of a extremely subjective "science" would be psychology. Treating anything that differs from the norm as a bad thing. Again with economic intent fuelling this.

[owleye]

But when one asks why pursue one aspect and not another one enters the realm of human intent and the asking of why would become relevant again. Even if human intent could be argued to be in nature irrelevant. But you do raise a interesting point as to nature of science itself. Science is like 'all' things man-made riddled with intent.
But as far as the religious aspects of science go. I think the problem lies with education. Science has no absolutes yet absolutes is what is thought. Then there is economic interests in science. A example of a extremely subjective "science" would be psychology. Treating anything that differs from the norm as a bad thing. Again with economic intent fuelling this.

My impression of this is that you are making sweeping generalizations about topics you may have little acquaintance with. What sort of background do you have in the science of psychology or the science of anything, for that matter, that you can make such generalizations about them? Is there anything you can cite as evidence to support these broad characterizations? If your only point is that scientists are humans, terrific, but that doesn't imply that science, as a whole, doesn't exert pressures on scientists themselves to maintain objectivity. Indeed, one has only to read their journals to see exhibited before you how much of themselves is removed from what they write, favoring instead the evidence drawn from the carefully crafted and openly presented experiments conducted. Of course, you may wish to draw a distinction between the hard sciences and social sciences, but this seems to be short-sighted. Such sciences have only recently come under scrutiny. Indeed, though it was not uncommon to say that psychology was hardly a science at all some 50 years or so ago, one need only examine what's going on in the field in recent years to realize that it has undergone a revolution in methodology. Unfortunately, I suppose, this hasn't gone unnoticed in the world of advertising and marketing, who tend to read their journals.

James

[Shiniyami]

As a whole science does of course scrutinise itself I never said that it doesn't. I am just saying that science is pushed into directions by external influences. You can't do research without funding. You won't get funded unless your research has something to offer. The second world war and subsequent cold war for instance were huge impulses for the scientific community.
I have to admit I am biased towards certain aspects of psychology. I agree that it has seen major improvements, as I would have been likely to have ended up in a insane asylum half a century ago. But my main concern I suppose is how brands influence the practised psychology. Brands have a invested interest in getting people to use their medicine. The psychologists also have a invested financial interest. I am not saying all psychologists prescribe medicine when it is not needed, but it does happen. I suppose the same would likely apply to other fields of medicine if it applies at all.
I have been told before that my ideas on the matter are a bit paranoid, and as I said I am biased.

I can't help but feel that mind altering medication is something that shouldn't be prescribed as often as it has.

[Marshall]

I looked over the thread and most are about science and, in particular, philosophy of science questions.

Just to tidy up and keep things roughly more or less in the proper categories, I propose to move the thread to Philo. of Sci. forum. Would that be OK with everybody?

Also note that Newton explicitly said he was not hypothesizing HOW gravity worked. His law does not describe a mechanism. He said "hypothesis non fingo". We are still trying to figure out how gravity works.
What he did was develop a flexible mathematical pattern that fit the data.

Also a lot of other sci research is an effort to discover natural events/conditions CORRELATED/ASSOCIATED with some phenomenon which may offer clues to explanation WHY it happens----without necessarily hypothesizing some mechanism for HOW one thing causes another. If you can find out why then maybe later with more work you can discover how. But finding out why is already science.

The way we actually use the WORDS how and why does NOT ALWAYS INVOLVE ASSUMING ANY KIND OF INTENT, on anybody's part---God's or anyone else's

There is just this common cliché misconception that people hear repeated so much they start to believe: that "science is about how" and "religion is about why".

This is just not true. Religion may be about [Divine] intent. But the word "why" as people use it is not always about intent. Therefore when a scientist talks about why something happens he is not verging on religion.

I think this thread is about science mainly and belongs in Phil of Sci. But if someone else disagrees, please say.

[granpa]

the point isnt that 'why' questions are mystical and nonscientific.
Its simply that many 'why' questions are unsolvable by empirical means.

the example I gave before was that of 'why' birds evolved.
we know what traits all birds share in common but its impossible to prove empirically which trait is primary and which traits are secondary.
All we can say is which possibility is most reasonable.

This is not just an academic issue.
knowing 'why' someone pulled the trigger can be very important.
was it an accident or was it on purpose?
all we can say is which possibility is most reasonable.
we cant look inside someones head so its virtually impossible to prove it empirically.

if we are objective about it then our intuition will tell us how reasonable a possibility is.
but how do you prove what your intuition is telling you?

[Marshall]

... many 'why' questions are unsolvable by empirical means.

I agree. MANY cannot be addressed empirically. And also MANY "why" questions CAN be addressed by empirical means, and they are SCIENTIFIC questions. Often when one asks a "why" question it has nothing to do with intent.

My only point is that it is a tired misleading cliché to divide questions up into why and how and then say that science just deals with how. Maybe this is a good thread in which to make that point.

Scientists are constantly asking why questions, trying to find the natural causes of stuff, and they use the word why in discussion---if they speak normal English. Science is very much in the business of asking why! (We can ask about causes of some phenom even when we are not prepared to explain how they operated.)

[granpa]

you atheists seem to want to have your cake and eat it too.
you violently insist that anything that cant be proven empirically is outside the scope of science then when someone points out that there are non-empirical methods of deriving information you try to change your definitions so that science includes them too.

of course these nonempirical methods are scientific in the sense that they arent mysticism or magic but by your own self imposed definitions they clearly fall outside the scope of science.

THAT is the point of the 'tired cliche'. (and it is not misleading)

democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
much the same thing can be said of empiricism

the point isnt that 'why' questions are mystical and nonscientific.
Its simply that many 'why' questions are unsolvable by empirical means.

the example I gave before was that of 'why' birds evolved.
we know what traits all birds share in common but its impossible to prove empirically which trait is primary and which traits are secondary.
All we can say is which possibility is most reasonable.

This is not just an academic issue.
knowing 'why' someone pulled the trigger can be very important.
was it an accident or was it on purpose?
all we can say is which possibility is most reasonable.
we cant look inside someones head so its virtually impossible to prove it empirically.

if we are objective about it then our intuition will tell us how reasonable a possibility is.
but how do you prove what your intuition is telling you?

[owleye]

you atheists seem to want to have you cake and eat it too.
you violently insist that anything that cant be proven empirically is outside the scope of science then when someone points out that there are non-empirical methods of deriving information you try to change your definitions so that science includes them too.

of course these nonempirical methods are scientific in the sense that they arent mysticism or magic but by your own self imposed definitions they clearly fall outside the scope of science.

THAT is the point of the 'tired cliche'. (and it is not misleading)

democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
much the same thing can be said of empiricism

I don't know why atheism is being kicked around, but when one says that evidence is what matters to scientists, it doesn't mean that science is devoid of reason. Inference is a vital tool in understanding what's going on. The significance of evidence is that it becomes the ultimate arbiter -- it is said to speak for itself, exposing any human inclination that would tend to make it a mere interpretative exercise. The goal of science is knowledge, not opinion. Moreover, science seeks causal accounts, not just correlations. They are in the business of seeking answers to questions about why something occurs through a causal analysis. They don't always succeed, perhaps making due only in developing models that describe and predict what does happen, with varying degrees of certainty, and ultimately they may not ever succeed, merely because the "why" questions never completely go away, but this is their goal nonetheless, and their success or failure depends on how they fare against evidence.

James