Science answers to "how?", we need another system to answer the "why?" questions.
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?
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?
Comments (6)
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....
Yes. Lines of demarcation are vague.
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.
How A involuntarily happens (i.e. changes).
Why B voluntarily decided and/or acted.
Not sure what ya mean but going by your track record, you're probably right! :cool: