What exactly is a "why" question?

[Reaper]

I think the "cliche" is entirely correct and Dawkins is talking out of his arse again. "How" is concerned with the mechanism with which something happens, whereas "why" is concerned with the motivation.

 

Inanimate objects and physical laws have motivations ?!

 

===========================================

 

I see that you guys can't seem to agree on what exactly a "why" question is.

 

My position so far on it is that a "why" question, well, can be both one of the most important and the most worthless of them all. One of the things that I do agree with Dawkins with, is that most theologians and/or people who are primarily religious sometimes don't recgonize that some questions just don't have any answers.

 

They also tend to be some of the least important ones too.....

[Mr Skeptic]

Why do you beat your wife?

Why is the moon made of green cheese?

Why is the earth flat?

Why are electrons more massive than protons?

 

It would seem that a "Why?" question makes a statement (an assumption) and then asks for justification for it. If the assumption is wrong, then the question is wrong. So I would say that if the question is correct, then "Why?" questions would have incredible value in science, but if the question is incorrect, the question will be worthless to religion, philosophy, science, and anything else based on logic.

[john5746]

It would seem that a "Why?" question makes a statement (an assumption) and then asks for justification for it. If the assumption is wrong, then the question is wrong. So I would say that if the question is correct, then "Why?" questions would have incredible value in science, but if the question is incorrect, the question will be worthless to religion, philosophy, science, and anything else based on logic.

 

 

[math]religion = \overline{logic} [/math]

 

Why did the hurricane kill all those people?

 

Religion: God's will?

 

Science: Given time, shit happens.

 

 

I think evolution attempts to explain why.

 

Why would a fish want to go on land?

Why would a male peacock display all those pretty feathers, making them easier to be eaten?

[Glider]

The religious motivation behind the formation of stars is that it is God's will. That simple! Science is not asking why, it is asking how.

That is my point. And in terms of science, the statement 'it's God's will' is not a meaningful answer, as it is an answer to everything and therefore answers nothing.

 

 

But we are not just talking about science. I have clearly explained that science only asks how questions, so if you make statements only "in the context of science" then you are not dealing with all the questions. Now, it is your right to hold the opinion that the question 'why' is not important (since it cannot be scientifically answered) and can thus be ignored, but that is your own (and Dawkins') personal bias.

Dawkin's original statement was made in the context of science, i.e. in the context of seeking explanations for natural phenomena, and as I said "As far as science is concerned they ['why' questions] are [meaningless] and so, in that context, he's quite right.". To extend his statement beyond the context in which it was made is unfair and putting words in his mouth.

 

My interpretation is that you seem to agree completely with Glider on this point.

 

I didn't interpret Glider's point to suggest that *he personally* does not think why questions are important, only that *in terms of science* they are somewhat meaningless.

 

It's possible that you are arguing with someone who agrees with you, which is why I pointed out the above. Cheers.

 

iNow has it. Thank you.