Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sergius]

The contention was that frivolous questions are abundant.

Well, I wasn't aware that you disagreed with that. It's good to know.

[Starver]

It's easy to ask questions that can't be answered, or that are meaningless. "Why X exists" is one of those type of questions, usually. Not because we don't know the answer, but because, there might not even BE a why.
[snip]

I tend to go for "how" over "why", but that's more because I tend towards there being either no purpose, or else no purpose that we could ever understand in context.  But we can drill down the "how" as far back as the causation can be analysed/derived and still makes sense to us, regardless of whether:

• ...the causation was done purposefully to the end effect we see,
• ...purposefully but with the end effect we see as an unforseen consequence/side-effect/accidental alternate result to the original purpose,
• ...just 'because' in a fire-and-forget situation where there was no ulterior purpose, or
• ...merely the result of the way the universe is, and that's the end of it.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

This thread does my AS Philosophy homework for me.

[Leafsnail]

There doesn't have to be an answer to every question - just because a question exists does not mean it has or needs an answer.  To quote two famous examples: "How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?", "Why are unicorns hollow?".

[Andir]

There doesn't have to be an answer to every question - just because a question exists does not mean it has or needs an answer.  To quote two famous examples: "How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?", "Why are unicorns hollow?".

That's because they are incomplete questions...

#1.  How big is an Angel and how big is the pin head?
#2.  Are Unicorns hollow?  (not, Why are...)

Rhetorical questions are "self answering" and thus don't need an answer, but every other question at least deserves an attempted solution.  It then becomes a first step in the Scientific Method.

[Leafsnail]

In your response, you've created two other questions that do not have or require answers.

[Andir]

In your response, you've created two other questions that do not have or require answers.

No, it created more questions.

#1.  Are there Angels, and do they have a size?  Could they fit on a pinhead?  How many?
#2.  Are there Unicorns and are they hollow?

All questions can/should be answered.  Anything short of answering them is ignoring the answer.  We call this ignorance.

[G-Flex]

There doesn't have to be an answer to every question - just because a question exists does not mean it has or needs an answer.  To quote two famous examples: "How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?", "Why are unicorns hollow?".

Well, those are examples of loaded questions. In this case, they rely on the premises that angels exist and that unicorns exist and are hollow. Obviously, a question needn't be considered if the premises themselves are in question.

[Leafsnail]

But then again, there is no guarentee that a "Why" question has an answer.  For example, "Why does gravity exist?".  What does "Why?" mean?

•the cause or intention underlying an action or situation

And the thing is that an inanimate universe does not necessarily have any intentions at all.  Perhaps it is no more meaningful than to ask "Why did that rock fall?".

[Andir]

But then again, there is no guarentee that a "Why" question has an answer.  For example, "Why does gravity exist?".  What does "Why?" mean?

•the cause or intention underlying an action or situation

And the thing is that an inanimate universe does not necessarily have any intentions at all.  Perhaps it is no more meaningful than to ask "Why did that rock fall?".

Sure there is.  That's what Science and the Scientific Method was created for.  To answer the "why".  Are you trying to say that there's just no need for Science at all?  If so...log off, throw your computer away, give away all your possessions and move in with some monks.

[Leafsnail]

No.  I was saying that the "Why?" question does not necessarily have an answer, since it's a question of intention.  Hence God does not need to be invoked to act as an answer to "Why?".

[redacted123]

I've always felt that science is the search for answers to "how?" questions, not "why?".

[Leafsnail]

I've always felt that science is the search for answers to "how?" questions, not "why?".

Yeah, that's what I've been trying to drive at.

[Andir]

I've always felt that science is the search for answers to "how?" questions, not "why?".

It can be both.

"Why" could be: "Why did this apple fall?"  "Why is it falling at the same speed as this lead ball?"
"How" could be: "How did this apple fall at the same speed as this lead ball?"  (which is basically the same question)  "How did this apple fall?" could be a leader question.  You answer how by finding out that the stem was "rotting" but that doesn't cover why it didn't fall up.

You cannot assume, however, that "Why" has intent.  This, IMHO, is the abstraction layer you are looking at the question.  "Why did that moron turn in front of me?!"  Looking at the "Why" at the personal scope (ie: intent) you can easily forget that they had a process in their head that triggered them to do that.  They might not have seen you ("How did they not see me?"), they might not have calculated your speed properly("How did they pass math/physics?")... they most likely didn't intend to pull out in front of you unless they had a chemical reaction to you or the situation (anger, desire, etc.)

Just as in the question of "Why are we here?"  Once you get beyond the personal scope of the question, you can look into the real answer to the question.

The problem here is that you are assuming intent.

[Leafsnail]

Sorry, ambiguity there.  I mean "Why?" as in the deep sense employed by theologans and philosophers, rather than the "Why?" questions a scientist can answer.