Science is about how, Philosophy is about why (new topic by Baby Astronaut)

[Baby Astronaut]

no this is not what I'm saying

 

space by its very nature will have a geometry(s) associated within it . it is SPACE after all

 

it just that you can't use space in and of itself by itself to change the geometry of a particular angle

 

the angle can only be changed by calculation

 

 

 

but what Einstein didn't include was the WHY

 

the WHY being while the geometrics said this or that and then came to a conclusion

 

he forgot or didn't include or couldn't include( because of the knowledge then known ) the physical dynamics of objects and their interactions, which is the essence of the geometrics

 

for the most part Einstein was right he just did not understand fully WHY he was right

 

for instance can we fully explain beyond geometrics why Mercury does what it does ?

 

not that I know of

Science is never about the WHY, but rather it is about the HOW. Philosophy is about the WHY. And maybe geometry is about the WHERE. I'm not yelling in caps, just highlighting.

 

That's how science has always been far as I know. Unless by WHY you really mean HOW?

 

It's potentially confusing. Such as, if the planet Mercury exploded, WHY is suddenly less of a philosophical question, and seeking to know the HOW pretty much becomes "why? what caused it?". But that's the public talking. In science, it's all about the HOW. And when scientists find out how Mercury exploded, the public will say "this is WHY it exploded".

[Martin]

Science is never about the WHY, but rather it is about the HOW. Philosophy is about the WHY.

 

This properly a Philosophy of Science topic. Not on topic in the original thread, but interesting to be considered on its own. We don't have a Philosophy of Science or Foundations of Physics forum, so maybe the best place for now is General Physics.

 

In my experience, physicists are constantly using the word 'why'. They ask each other why such and such happens. They explain why etc.

So I would not agree with BA's claim.

The only way you could make it true AFAICS is to force people to use words in unaccustomed ways----i.e. reform their speech habits restrictively.

 

However it is not hard to see what the statement is driving at, Phys and Phil do traffic in different sorts of explanation and one can try to describe the two different styles and standards of explaining you get exposed to on either side of the fence.

 

But does anyone agree with BA's assertion?

Edited December 27, 2008 by Martin

[Baby Astronaut]

I've gotta admit the source of that is "You Can with Beakman and Jax", a science weekly feature from the Sunday comics. And their definitions of HOW and WHY has stuck in my mind ever since. Though perhaps I shouldv'e done research before assuming it common scientific practice, but nevertheless it's been a good rule of thumb all these years.

 

Jok Church brought the subject up again at a "Comics: Meet the Artist" interview in the Washington Post.

 

Why is where we get to eventually, not where we begin. I'm about what and how, and those are kind of the tinker toys of the material world. And you have to have those together and be stable--you have understand those--before you can move on to why. Why is philosophy. I can explain how the sky is seen by us as blue. I can explain what is happening. But I can't tell you why that happens. That's philosophy. One of the things that I hope for the world is that people will have what and how fully grasped before they tackle philosophy. Because they are an awful lot of people who are jumping into philosophy who are causing a great deal of damage right now.

And quoted below is an excerpt from the original comic strip that inspired me.

 

Asked a basic physiological question--"Why does your nose get stuffed up or run when you have a cold?"--Jax gets all eggheaded. "Explaining why something happens is nearly impossible. You can look at how something works or what is going on. But why it happens . . . is really about something called philosophy (fill-OS-o-fee) . . . "

I guess over the years I forgot they had included WHAT as being science, or at least the observation/conclusion part I would guess.

[Martin]

Though perhaps I shouldv'e done research before assuming ...

 

Well research is generally good to do, or you could have put it in the form of a question.

 

It isn't a useful fact, more just a common uninformative platitude. Not long ago a woman with little knowledge of science said that---on another board---and the local physicist (a Fermilab experimental particle physicist) became enraged.

He told her to get off it, in no uncertain terms:D

I think he had probably heard it just one too many times and it was the last straw.

 

This is a non-issue for me. It doesn't bug me. I'm interested in isolating some threads that have a physics AND philosophy character, as a kind of experiment, and this is an example that came along.

 

To me personally it seems obvious that if we are talking ordinary English and not giving special meanings to our words then Physics is very much about WHY and physicists spend their adult lives asking why and explaining why and trying to find out why. How as well---they're joined at the hip: describing a process or mechanism is often the way to explain why.

[swansont]

It depends on the question. "Why did this happen?" has an answer, because there is causality, and you just determining the causal factors. But asking why physical law is the way it is, as in North's post, is philosophy. Science doesn't address that question.

[Baby Astronaut]

I take it back, you can't possibly research everything. You're correct about putting it in the form of a question if unsure, however back in the day I was more inclined to believe that if a statement would appear in a highly visible media, that itself was a deterrent vs forwarding a personal belief as if it were a known fact, especially because it dealt with science and because the authors displayed genuine care for its associated principles and sticking to the facts.

 

I've learned since then to verify what I learn even when the source is trusted, because it's human nature to err, and bias can be difficult to avoid occasionally.

 

But some things are nearly research-proof by the usual means. For example, the HOW and WHY of science and philosophy.

 

One of my first stops in research now is a search engine. I'll begin with key words, and think about how often those words might appear in the context. For example, "how" or "why" are extremely likely to appear with the word "science" in an article, but what about at the same time? The possibility is still good because of all sorts of questions the general public has for scientists.

 

Thus, my next step would be to include words that should appear only within the context of the science vs philosophy comparisons. If that fails, I resort to phrases. Below is an example of how my searches evolve.

 

science how why (no help)

science philosophy how why (one hit)

science philosophy how "rather than why" (better luck)

science philosophy how "not why" (not as good)

science philosophy religion how "rather than why" (a few hits)

 

Another trick I use is to put a minus sign in front of words I'd like to exclude, which helps only if a bunch of like pages totally unrelated to science or philosophy are found, because I can eliminate them in one fell swoop by including a word that would appear there but highly unlikely to appear on the desired page. However, in the searches above, I didn't have that luxury.

 

So if I can't find anything (in this case, all the search hits just re-affirmed the HOW and WHY relationships to science and philosophy), I'll ask the experts. But if the premise is sound, I might fail to investigate and can't entirely be faulted. No one has all the time to research everything.

 

At least, not by the usual means. Talking about it, especially in a science forums or some form of community, is a sort of indirect research tool. I probably learned more here than I would've by searching on my own.

 

Yet ironically, a solution appeared while doing research for this.

 

Science might be described by studying the "mechanisms of reality" whereas philosophy is better described by the "purposes of reality". You can substitute the word "events" or "being" for reality too, I suppose.

 

It isn't a useful fact, more just a common uninformative platitude. Not long ago a woman with little knowledge of science said that---on another board---and the local physicist (a Fermilab experimental particle physicist) became enraged.

He told her to get off it, in no uncertain terms:D

I think he had probably heard it just one too many times and it was the last straw..

What did the woman say? The part about platitude? Or the WHY and HOW definitions?

Edited December 27, 2008 by Baby Astronaut
clarified a phrase

[Martin]

What did the woman say? The part about platitude? Or the WHY and HOW definitions?

 

She said science was about HOW and philosophy was about WHY. He said that was drivel, garbage etc. That if you looked deep enough it was a meaningless distinction. He'd spent his life doing science and he thought he knew what he was talking about. Words to that effect.

 

I can't say I have much sympathy for either. She was wrong---naive but harmless---but he didn't have to react so forcefully. It's the kind of thing I'd normally let pass.

 

Modern philosophy is largely about how we talk, how we reason, how we know. Philosophy of science is about how science works. Not how it should work or ought to work but how, as a traditional human activity it does work.

Nancy Cartwright is a brilliant philosopher of science. Heard her talk a couple of years ago, it was a treat. Check her out if you have any interest in philosophy/science.

 

I can't think of any case in the past 100 years where a philosopher explained why anything in nature. Maybe you can, good luck:D

 

Religion is different---if you accept that phenomena have a purpose then you can make statements about why in the special sense of for what purpose?

But professional academic philosophers I've met or read typically aren't religious and have no use for that kind of WHY.

 

Basically that leaves WHY to scientists. Finding rational explanation for what happens, and testing by prediction is their core activity.

 

... But asking why physical law is the way it is... is philosophy. Science doesn't address that question.

 

Let's consider that as a general statement, unconnected with any particular post. A point to make here is that humans' ideas about what is a physical law change over time. Also our ideas can change about what can be given a rational explanation. Ideas can change regarding what is appropriate for scientific investigation.

 

At one point in history, Euclidean geometry was accepted as an absolute norm. The angles of a straight-sided triangle always added up to 180 and that was how the world was.

Then later it was discovered that geometry itself is dynamical and contingent. There is an explanation for why the angles add up to very near 180 much of the time, and they don't do so everywhere.

 

At one point, I expect, the catalog of living species was not considered appropriate for explanation. There simply were birds, and that was that. Then Darwin discovered he could ask why are there birds. There was a testable model of a process that could have given rise to birds, starting (say) from fish.

 

So I imagine that the dimensionless fundamental constants, like mass ratios of fundamental particles may (if they are not already) be considered subject to explanation. Some process may have given rise to the fine structure constant, just as some process gave rise to the duck, or the peacock.

 

Only partly serious here, but I'm reluctant to be locked in to some particular catalog of what is or isn't an unexplainable physical law. I expect the boundaries to shift.

 

http://pirsa.org/08100049/

Edited December 27, 2008 by Martin
clarification

[swansont]

At one point in history, Euclidean geometry was accepted as an absolute norm. The angles of a straight-sided triangle always added up to 180 and that was how the world was.

Then later it was discovered that geometry itself is dynamical and contingent. There is an explanation for why the angles add up to very near 180 much of the time, and they don't do so everywhere.

 

I think you're blurring a distinction here. The world is not always Euclidean, even though it was at one time assumed that it was. But within Euclidean geometry, triangles always add to 180, because that's how the geometry is defined. If the triangle you're looking at doesn't add to 180, you aren't in a Euclidean geometry. The geometry of nature is dynamic, not the geometry of Euclid.

[Martin]

I think you're blurring a distinction here. The world is not always Euclidean, even though it was at one time assumed that it was. But within Euclidean geometry, triangles always add to 180, because that's how the geometry is defined. If the triangle you're looking at doesn't add to 180, you aren't in a Euclidean geometry. The geometry of nature is dynamic, not the geometry of Euclid.

 

You are presenting a modern view. My point is that in earlier times it was not realized that the real geometry of the world is contingent.

 

What you say namely that The geometry of nature is dynamic, and that the geometry we experience in nature is not the geometry of Euclid, is something I agree with and think is generally accepted.

 

My point is an historical one. People didn't used to realize that geometry was influenced by the arrangement of matter and so geometry could evolve with time. The Euclidean case is only an approximation, never precisely true, and represents the case in which there is no matter in a static universe, or that gravity is turned off. So Euclidean geometry had, at one time, the character of a natural law. It was absolute and not dependent on anything. Perhaps this is a poor example. I want to show by example how the borders separating contingent and absolute can shift over time, as perceptions and understanding change. Not something to argue about, in any case:-)

[npts2020]

I am not so sure science and philosophy can be neatly separated. IMO philosphy is merely speculation on unproven scientific matters. Once science substantially "proves" something it moves out of the realm of philosophy and into the realm of science. Nearly all (i would say all but someone would probably come up with an exception) of modern science has its beginnings in philosophy and as such the only difference is that one is proven the other is not.

[Martin]

I am not so sure science and philosophy can be neatly separated. IMO philosphy is merely speculation on unproven scientific matters. Once science substantially "proves" something it moves out of the realm of philosophy and into the realm of science. Nearly all (i would say all but someone would probably come up with an exception) of modern science has its beginnings in philosophy and as such the only difference is that one is proven the other is not.

 

I like what you are saying Npts, there's a lot of truth in it--to the extent that both communities are focusing on the same subject matter, whatever it is.

 

One could quibble and point to Ethics. What is the good life. what should be our purpose. how should communities function. Should we bother to spread carbonbase life to exoplanets. Should everyone be allowed to have children if they want. What do you want from a political system?

In a sense Philosophy protects science from sticking its nose into dangerous places----Philosophy does this by sticking its big nose into those places. So science doesn't have to.

 

What I'm quibbling is there may actually be issues that science will NEVER address because they are just not welladapted for scientific inquiry. And Philosophers are welcome to take care of business without competition.

 

They also are good at disillusioning people who get inspired by naive ideas. There is room for intellectual good taste. and Philosophers help with maintaining that. Probably aesthetics can never be entirely scientificized, any more than ethics can. In ant and termite societies values could maybe be reduced to a science and maybe some day they will announce that resistance is futile and we will be assimilated. But we can afford to wait until we hear from them about that.

 

Yes you are right (except for quibbles). Science began as Natural Philosophy and inasmuch as they look at the same issues science turf is the modeled and tested part. May it continue to expand at the expense of the unmodeled untested part!