Shiniyami wrote: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.
Shiniyami wrote: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.
granpa wrote:... many 'why' questions are unsolvable by empirical means.
granpa wrote: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?
granpa wrote: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
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests