Evidence

[Walking Void]

I find why to be either a subjective question (with objectionable roots covered by the "how"), or it can be a religious question.

It better be the former.

[Max_Kolbe]

What is it about our evolution as humans (I don't have a problem with the theory of evolution) that we can even ask the question "why."

Is there a difference between "why do the stars move that way" and "how do the stars move that way." Aren't scientists moved to investigate by asking why, not just how?

No complaint. Only questions.

I think in certain cases, 'how?' answers also answer 'why?' questions. The stars move the way they do because of gravity.

Yes, I think that is what I was trying to get at. Scientists who ask how are probably also asking why, too. It seems to be part of being human to ask why.

---

What is it about our evolution as humans (I don't have a problem with the theory of evolution) that we can even ask the question "why."

I think the answer offered by evolutionary psychologists seems apt. It essentially boils down to our evolutionary ingrained disposition towards associating agency behind things, which at times is a false positive, but has no negative impact with regards to reproduction. The usual analogy is that of a pre-human species who sees/hears the grass rustle. If they think it's a tiger in the grass and run away even though it was just the grass, they've had a false positive.

Is there a difference between "why do the stars move that way" and "how do the stars move that way." Aren't scientists moved to investigate by asking why, not just how?

There's a difference. Asking 'why' the stars move the way they do is fundamentally unanswerable, because there's no logically necessary reason why things behave the way they do at all (see David Hume's Adam and billiards analogy). That things behave as they do doesn't seem amenable to any necessity and can be infinitely be pushed back.

I don't think science (in a case like this) deals in 'whys'.

Is "why" fundamentally unanswerable? Might we someday come to a place in our knowledge about the world that we can answer why? Might we someday discover the "unmoved mover" whatever it might be or someday discover empirically that there isn't an unmoved mover.

[Jiggerj]

In another thread FaithNoMore wrote "we have to go where the evidence leads us."

So, if we look at the evidence in nature, where does the evidence lead us? How does the evidence answer this question: how did all this get here?

(Can the evidence answer the metaphysical question, why is all this here?)

No. That's just it. The evidence doesn't lead us anywhere yet. Life on this planet and the universe itself is not proof of a god. Is a forest fire proof of an arsonist?

[Minimalist]

Is "why" fundamentally unanswerable?

You assume there is a "why." "Why" is important to theists because they assert their particular variant of sky-daddy as the "why."

Science is more concerned with what is. And they can figure out how it got this way without invoking magic.

[Neo-Scholastic]

It leads us to naturalistic answers. Metaphysics is a philosophical construct, and therefore, not a scientific concern.

That does not mean that science is the only means for gaining real knowledge. The practice of science rests on the bedrock of philosophy. Philosophy is a discipline that also produces knowledge, some of which is even more certain than any derived by the scientific method. For example, all real things are numerable and can be counted is a philosophical concept. It cannot be falsified and is still undoubtedly true.

[Max_Kolbe]

In another thread FaithNoMore wrote "we have to go where the evidence leads us."

So, if we look at the evidence in nature, where does the evidence lead us? How does the evidence answer this question: how did all this get here?

(Can the evidence answer the metaphysical question, why is all this here?)

No. That's just it. The evidence doesn't lead us anywhere yet. Life on this planet and the universe itself is not proof of a god. Is a forest fire proof of an arsonist?

Ummm... I didn't mention anything about a god or proof for a god. My question was "how does the evidence answer this question: how did all this get here?" Certainly we have evidence of a big bang and evidence of evolution that, at least, begins to answer how.

[gall]

Obviously evidence can tell us how things got here, but the tone I got from your question was in implied 'why things are here' question, which unjustifiably draws in teleology.

No, there was no tone. I just thought of the metaphysical question after my first.

So the question is, what does the evidence tell us about how everything got here? Do we have enough evidence to answer that question?

---

I promise it wasn't all leading up to you.

I like to think it was.

Do you have even one scrap of evidence that "god" is "real"????

I can cite thousands of evidences in science that indicate a better idea of where we come from and why than any religious text. I have no intention of getting bated by this troll bullshit but hey lets see your evidence of the claim you are already making in that you claim "god" is "real".

I could care less what you believe I want you to prove it. Can I prove nature and science? I think you already know the answer to that and any question you are asking here which brings me to; Why are you asking it?

---

No. That's just it. The evidence doesn't lead us anywhere yet. Life on this planet and the universe itself is not proof of a god. Is a forest fire proof of an arsonist?

Ummm... I didn't mention anything about a god or proof for a god. My question was "how does the evidence answer this question: how did all this get here?" Certainly we have evidence of a big bang and evidence of evolution that, at least, begins to answer how.

So if you know that and know it is there and has been for decade upon decade why did you pose this question at all? You could use the internet for a better purpose than just trolling people who don't agree with you. Do your own research. Evolutionary evidence is all around you in biology, geology, chemistry, physics etc... thousands of pages of it.

How much evidence is in the pages of the "good book"???

[MindForgedManacle]

[/size]

Is "why" fundamentally unanswerable? Might we someday come to a place in our knowledge about the world that we can answer why? Might we someday discover the "unmoved mover" whatever it might be or someday discover empirically that there isn't an unmoved mover.

We're talking about different things now. The 'why' that I was referring as unanswerable to had to do with your question about stars. Now you're talking about cosmic purpose again, which I can't see being any more useful once you ask "Why does this unmoved mover exist?" and "Why should I care what subjective purpose this unmoved mover assigned to its creation?"

These are value-ladden questions, and fundamentally unanswerable. They depend on you valuing certain things beforehand.

Curses, Hume wins again.

---

That does not mean that science is the only means for gaining real knowledge. The practice of science rests on the bedrock of philosophy. Philosophy is a discipline that also produces knowledge, some of which is even more certain than any derived by the scientific method. For example, all real things are numerable and can be counted is a philosophical concept. It cannot be falsified and is still undoubtedly true.

See, I wasn't sure he was making that claim (still not sure). Seemed he was just saying that science ignores metaphysics largely (perhaps aside from the assumptions it makes).

[Tonus]

Yes, I think that is what I was trying to get at. Scientists who ask how are probably also asking why, too. It seems to be part of being human to ask why.

It seems to me that there are two different ideas here. As Mister A wrote, "why" could simply be another way of asking "how," such as the old example of the child who asks endless "why is that" questions. He doesn't seek any greater meaning behind the color of the sky; he's simply curious.

The other "why" seeks a purpose, not a reason. For a species of thinking creatures who often died before they had grown old, there may have been a very strong desire for there to be something more than the short and brutal existence that was typical. Even a relatively short future that would be spent in a world without pain and suffering would seem like, well... heaven. Ascribing a purpose to an otherwise brief and seemingly pointless life was probably inevitable among those ancient people.

[ManMachine]

It leads us to naturalistic answers. Metaphysics is a philosophical construct, and therefore, not a scientific concern.

I would suggest you are underestimating philosophy and how much it still influences scientific endeavour and is very much a concern.

The principle of falsifiability which is so central to modern scientific theory is a philosophical concept not a scientific one.

Demarcation, what constitutes science and what does not is a philosophical question.

The analysis of scientific information is informed by philosophy.

The purpose of science is a philosophical question.

These are but a few of the interactions between philosophy and science.

To quote Daniel Dennett;

"There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination."


MM