NationStates Jolt Archive

I relate this question particually to the growing discussion between several misguided religious people and scientists specificly, but also in general. I beleieve that in any situation, the answer to the question of "why" serves us much more and is far more important than "how" could ever be. I think if we knew for certian why the universe was created, it would change our lives far more radically than if we knew for certian how it was created.

But like I said, its much more wide than that. For example in a murder case, the motive (why someone was killed) gives many more avenues of enquiry than the how can I think. I'm sure there are other situations too, so please, discuss.

Well, you have to know the how before you can seriously investigate the why.

Using the example of the murder case, it would be impossible to form a theory or consider possible suspects without knowing how the person died and how the evidence available fits together; the same is true with the origin of the universe. If anything, the sheer majesty and power of the forces governing the origin and evolution of the universe are far more compelling an argument for the existence of a deity than any ancient text could ever be.

how is an easier question to answer

No one ever said there is a why.

For instance, there might not be a "why" for the formation of the universe. There often isn't a "why" for a lot of murders. Although that's really a poor comparison, since the universe coming to be appears to be a natural phenomenon while commiting murder certainly isn't.

Well, If you are building something, the why is usually pretty obvious, the how is the the tricky part. You can't always say that why is always the more important question.

I'm not sure that "Why?" is a useful question.

Think about it. Most answers to the question "Why?" can be followed by yet another question "Why?" Eventually, you run out of answers.

I'm not confident that the ultimate answer to "Why?" is knowable.

Is "why" much more important than "how"
No, but it is often more significant.

I relate this question particually to the growing discussion between several misguided religious people and scientists specificly, but also in general. I beleieve that in any situation, the answer to the question of "why" serves us much more and is far more important than "how" could ever be. I think if we knew for certian why the universe was created, it would change our lives far more radically than if we knew for certian how it was created.

But like I said, its much more wide than that. For example in a murder case, the motive (why someone was killed) gives many more avenues of enquiry than the how can I think. I'm sure there are other situations too, so please, discuss.
Sometimes "how" is "why", like when we are asking specifically for a mechanism type purpose, rather than an intentional purpose.

Personally, "why" doesn't matter to me, and "how" can be boring. I'm just happy to be here, now.

"Do not ask Why? Be cautious with How? Why? leads inexorably to paradox. How? traps you in a universe of cause and effect. Both deny the infinite." - Frank Herbert

That basically sums up my view. Or at least, the view that I try and achieve.

I'm not sure that "Why?" is a useful question.

Some people don't think it is.

Think about it. Most answers to the question "Why?" can be followed by yet another question "Why?" Eventually, you run out of answers.

Most "How?" questions also lead to more "How?" questions. This is why science keeps progressing, instead of stopping at a given possible answer.

I'm not confident that the ultimate answer to "Why?" is knowable.

Maybe not, but that doesn't mean that the search might not be useful.


As for the OP: To some people, "How?" and "Why?" are the same question, at least as far as those things not involving human intent is concerned. If no higher purpose or order is posited, there is no reason to ask "Why?" The only answer is the same answer as the question "How?" For such people, neither question is more important, they are simply the same.

For others, both the questions of "How?" and "Why?" are important. Knowledge itself is important. The search for the divine is important. The search for knowledge of the world is important. Why does one need to be "more important" than the other?

I once asked a professor at uni who was, in my opinion, researching some of the most useless science imaginable, why he was doing so. His reply was simply: if no-one ever researched anything because someone felt it was useless, where would we be today?

I admit that he does have a point, and so nowadays I believe that how is much more important than why. If I can make something work, I’m sure there are someone out there who can find a use for it…

I relate this question particually to the growing discussion between several misguided religious people and scientists specificly, but also in general. I beleieve that in any situation, the answer to the question of "why" serves us much more and is far more important than "how" could ever be. I think if we knew for certian why the universe was created, it would change our lives far more radically than if we knew for certian how it was created.

But like I said, its much more wide than that. For example in a murder case, the motive (why someone was killed) gives many more avenues of enquiry than the how can I think. I'm sure there are other situations too, so please, discuss.

For one, you can't be certain there is a 'why?' to the formation of the universe. We can, however, be certain there is a 'how?' to the formation.

Two, as has already been stated, it is nearly impossible to divine why something happened (unless the one who did it tells you) without first knowing how.

Three, how is often an answer that can be found and backed up with evidence while why is often a matter of interpretation.

Four, in your example, it would be more accurate to just use a death. A murder has an implied 'why?' in the act, whereas the kinds of things your talking about don't necessarily. And to divine it is a murder, what do we figure out first?

There isn't always a 'why'. More to the point, there need not be. It is the 'how' that is important.

There isn't always a 'why'. More to the point, there need not be. It is the 'how' that is important.
Science should be concerned purely with the how. Leave the why to the philosophers and Deep Thought.

Science should be concerned purely with the how. Leave the why to the philosophers and Deep Thought.

And guys who live in their mother's basement and spend all their time on NS.

And guys who live in their mother's basement and spend all their time on NS.
Like I said...

Like I said...

I know. You leave the why part alone because you don't meet one of those two criteria.

How is usually a useful thing to know. Why is more about satifying curiosity.

I know. You leave the why part alone because you don't meet one of those two criteria.
Yeah, I haven't been on NS that much lately.

I relate this question particually to the growing discussion between several misguided religious people
....that's probably good enough.
Here ya go - the why is summatable in the concept of "free will". Ask god what the point of its free will is so long as it intends manifest strict adherence to plan for everything else in supposed creation. Why else does he get so pissed off in the OT? Hmmm?
Chew on that a while. Perhaps even god doesn't believe in free will, and hates us for not believing in him. So he convinces some .. how'd you say it ... several misguided religious people to kill themselves for his delight.
You can't make any more choices after being dead, and if you commit yourself to being dead, looks like he won.

Just a thought for "discussion".

And guys who live in their mother's basement and spend all their time on NS.
Score!
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/215.gif

Bull crap! There is always a why. The problem is that sometimes why is not knowable with our current powers of observation and limtations on perception.


Ultimately I prefer the question of why to how, but that is just a matter of the type of person I am and what I concern myself with.

In sciences like physics and chemistry why is less important than how, since you can usually infer why from how. But in the social sciences how is almost always already known, but its the why that we want to know.


Case in point: Crime exists, and how crime is conducted is already largely known. But what is more important is knowledge about why crime exists, as this helps us combat and remove crime.



And why is a very useful question for beginning an inquiry. Why does the universe work this way? And so a scientist goes about answering the overall question of why by breaking it up into small pieces consisting of "how."

It is the "why" that drives us.


So which is ultimately more important? Ridiculous question. How and Why form the basis of our knowledge of the universe. All other interrogatives are used to satisfy one or the other, and in the long term it might even be thought that "how" exists only to satisfy "why."

NT

Bull crap! There is always a why. The problem is that sometimes why is not knowable with our current powers of observation and limtations on perception.


Ultimately I prefer the question of why to how, but that is just a matter of the type of person I am and what I concern myself with.

In sciences like physics and chemistry why is less important than how, since you can usually infer why from how. But in the social sciences how is almost always already known, but its the why that we want to know.


Case in point: Crime exists, and how crime is conducted is already largely known. But what is more important is knowledge about why crime exists, as this helps us combat and remove crime.



And why is a very useful question for beginning an inquiry. Why does the universe work this way? And so a scientist goes about answering the overall question of why by breaking it up into small pieces consisting of "how."

It is the "why" that drives us.


So which is ultimately more important? Ridiculous question. How and Why form the basis of our knowledge of the universe. All other interrogatives are used to satisfy one or the other, and in the long term it might even be thought that "how" exists only to satisfy "why."

NT
Evey Hammond: Who are you?
V: Who? Who is but the form following the function of what, and what I am is a man in a mask.
Evey Hammond: Well I can see that.
V: Of course you can. I'm not questioning your powers of observation, I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is.

Bull crap! There is always a why. The problem is that sometimes why is not knowable with our current powers of observation and limtations on perception.'Why' implies there is reasoning behind the event being questioned. But not all events are caused (indirectly or otherwise) by intelligent agents.
There is no 'why' to an apple falling to the ground, unless some intelligence created gravity or dropped the apple or caused it to drop, or in some other way plays a role in the causation. The apple falls not for a reason, it simply does for none at all.
Of course, it doesn't help that people anthropomorphise everything.. You'll hear people say the tree wants its apples to fall. Yes, right, thinking trees..

How and why are both important questions, but speaking subjectively it is only on a personal level which is more important.

The typical religios person would be more interewsted in the why, and I guess the typical unreligios person whould be more interested in the how.

Which is actualy objectivly more important? Shit, answer that one objectivly go on I dares ya!

'Why' implies there is reasoning behind the event being questioned. But not all events are caused (indirectly or otherwise) by intelligent agents.
There is no 'why' to an apple falling to the ground, unless some intelligence created gravity or dropped the apple or caused it to drop, or in some other way plays a role in the causation. The apple falls not for a reason, it simply does for none at all.
Of course, it doesn't help that people anthropomorphise everything.. You'll hear people say the tree wants its apples to fall. Yes, right, thinking trees..

Bingo.

Which is actualy objectivly more important? Shit, answer that one objectivly go on I dares ya!The 'how' would include a 'why' if there is one. That doesn't necessarily make it more important, but it's more complete. (What is important really depends on what you want to know. Less can be more.)

The 'how' would include a 'why' if there is one. That doesn't necessarily make it more important, but it's more complete. (What is important really depends on what you want to know. Less can be more.)

No, it wouldn't. Why would how include a why? If you answer how someone was murdered, it's not very likely that the why of that would include or even knowable.

What it comes down to is "how" offers an explanation. "Why" offers a means to accept the explanation.

Answering "how" is an act of reason.
Answering "why" is an act of compassion.

No, it wouldn't. Why would how include a why? If you answer how someone was murdered, it's not very likely that the why of that would include or even knowable.A complete answer to 'how' should include everything in the causal tree, including any reasons. i.e. 'why's
That people almost always give incomplete answers when asked a 'how' or 'why' question does not change this.

If people wonder how someone came to be killed, they rarely want to know everything. They don't want to know how the person came to be in the first place, though it's clearly a prerequisite for being murdered.
At most you'll get into the why he was at the place he was murdered, and why the killer murdered him, and what with etc.

"Do not ask Why? Be cautious with How? Why? leads inexorably to paradox. How? traps you in a universe of cause and effect. Both deny the infinite." - Frank Herbert

That basically sums up my view. Or at least, the view that I try and achieve.
i have no idea what that means or how it would apply to real life.

"Why." Bah and meh to it.

Whys are almost always irrelevant. There are a few exceptions, but very, very few (outside of legal situations which demand taking mitigating circumstances into account).

In almost every case I've seen or experienced, wondering about whys is at best a distraction from the important stuff, and in certain cases can really mess things up in a big way. Plus, when concerning someone's behavior, people don't usually admit the reason behind whatever it was that made a person ask it anyway, and it's almost always impossible to suss it out with anything remotely resembling accuracy.

About the only time I'll suffer answering any "whys" is if I'm trying to get out of some jam. I really hate the question, and the ones who ask it make the most terrible of decisions, or delay making any decision (when such delaying only causes them pain that could have been easily avoided by not worrying about WHY!). Or it's really irrelevant to the matter at hand so there's no logical point in bothering (except to pacify some why-nik).

And I don't have much use for it in any other situation, either. If something mechanical breaks, for instance, my questions usually start with "WHAT." WHAT'S wrong? HOW can I fix it? HOW do I keep it from breaking down again? Not "why." "Why" is probably "because some underpaid and overworked schlock put it together wrong!" Fat lotta good figuring that out would do me.

As whoever reads this can probably tell, I have no use for the question of "why" especially when it comes to anything connected with human behavior. Humans very often do things "just cuz," or at least for reasons I'm not going to be able to change anyway even if I did waste my neuronic power on wondering about it. For machinery and programming, the question has value maybe 1% of the time, otherwise it's just distracting from the important stuff (how, where, what, or when).

And as for the creation of the universe, I don't care why. It exists, and I'm in it. Cool enough. "Who" or "how" I can see asking, but not why.

Why is metaphysical, how is scientific.

Of course, why sometimes IS how. For instance, I have an alarm clock. How does it work? Well, you turn the key and wind it up and the spring inside gets tighter and as it unwinds, the clock works. Why does it work? The only answer I can think of that isn't "Because I wound it up" would explain the physics of the tension in the spring and the related movement of the clockworks. But that ends up being a greater extension of how.

Continuing with the how question, one might learn about how a clock is made, how the pieces are crafted, how time is determined and so on. All of which would end up with us knowing a great deal about alarm clocks, and possibly having the knowledge of how to create on from raw materials, even how to find those materials, and so on.

The "because I wound it up" answer could be quite unsatisfying. It only leads to another why, "WHY did you wind it?" "Because I need it to wake me up in the morning." "Why do you need to wake up?" "Because I need to go to work..." and so on. All of which may be interesting, but unless my job is making alarm clocks, it only ends up wandering so far afield that we are no longer dealing with our original topic at all.

Metaphysics is fun that way. So ultimately, why is metaphysical, how is scientific.

A complete answer to 'how' should include everything in the causal tree, including any reasons. i.e. 'why's
That people almost always give incomplete answers when asked a 'how' or 'why' question does not change this.

If people wonder how someone came to be killed, they rarely want to know everything. They don't want to know how the person came to be in the first place, though it's clearly a prerequisite for being murdered.
At most you'll get into the why he was at the place he was murdered, and why the killer murdered him, and what with etc.

A complete answer to how would include all the hows. A complete answer to what happened would include a why. No matter how you slice it, why I drank a soda has NOTHING to do with a complete answer to how I drank it. The answer to how is complete without the why. Thw complete answer to what happened is what requires a why.

I love that you misused how in a question just so you could pretend it's the how question. How someone was killed has nothing to do with why? How someone came to be killed is really about what happened.

EDIT: By the by, if I can give just one example of a how question that doesn't include a why then you're statement that why is inherent in how is utterly wrong. I gave you one. Guess what that means.

'Why' implies there is reasoning behind the event being questioned. But not all events are caused (indirectly or otherwise) by intelligent agents.
There is no 'why' to an apple falling to the ground, unless some intelligence created gravity or dropped the apple or caused it to drop, or in some other way plays a role in the causation. The apple falls not for a reason, it simply does for none at all.
Of course, it doesn't help that people anthropomorphise everything.. You'll hear people say the tree wants its apples to fall. Yes, right, thinking trees..


Since when does a reason for an occurrence, a cause, require an intelligent agent?

There is a why to an apple falling to the ground. A decrease in the structural integrity of a portion of the branch caused the weight of the apple to be sufficient to break the apple's connection to the tree.

A how is then asked: How did this structural integrity decrease occur? Oxidation of the cells in the tree branch occurred over time.

Why does this oxidation occur? Hm... seems like we have gotten to a point where we can't answer a question. This must be an important question. Yep: "Why do things age?" is a pretty important question.



Reason is a faculty of intelligent beings. But "a reason" is an explanation of why events occur. Why asks for an explanation of an event. How asks for an account of the methodology that occurs with an event. There is ALWAYS a Why, not matter what, when, where, or who is involved.

NT

Why is metaphysical, how is scientific.

Of course, why sometimes IS how. For instance, I have an alarm clock. How does it work? Well, you turn the key and wind it up and the spring inside gets tighter and as it unwinds, the clock works. Why does it work? The only answer I can think of that isn't "Because I wound it up" would explain the physics of the tension in the spring and the related movement of the clockworks. But that ends up being a greater extension of how.

Continuing with the how question, one might learn about how a clock is made, how the pieces are crafted, how time is determined and so on. All of which would end up with us knowing a great deal about alarm clocks, and possibly having the knowledge of how to create on from raw materials, even how to find those materials, and so on.

The "because I wound it up" answer could be quite unsatisfying. It only leads to another why, "WHY did you wind it?" "Because I need it to wake me up in the morning." "Why do you need to wake up?" "Because I need to go to work..." and so on. All of which may be interesting, but unless my job is making alarm clocks, it only ends up wandering so far afield that we are no longer dealing with our original topic at all.

Metaphysics is fun that way. So ultimately, why is metaphysical, how is scientific.


Or you could try answering your own question instead of trying to evade what the actual question wishes to acquire.


Why does the alarm clock work when I wind it up? Because of the laws of mechanics and elasticity.

How does elasticity and mechanical energy work? Insert answer here

Why does energy transfer across collisions? Insert answer here

How does energy transfer from matter to matter? Got no clue on this one...



How and why are intertwined. In fact I can't conceive of how you can ask one question without then wanting or needing to ask the other. Knowing how something works is useful but it is only by answering why that allows a full understanding of what is going on. And it is only with a full understanding of what is going on that one may generalize the principle and thereby apply that knowledge to the creation of similar or related constructs.

Why hardly needs to be contained within the realm of metaphysics.

NT

Since when does a reason for an occurrence, a cause, require an intelligent agent?Because somethign without intelligence cannot by definition reason.

Reason is a faculty of intelligent beings. But "a reason" is an explanation of why events occur. Why asks for an explanation of an event.No, why ask for the purpose and goals involved in the event.
Hence there is no 'why' when there is no purpose..

How asks for an account of the methodology that occurs with an event. How ask for the causality of the event.

EDIT: By the by, if I can give just one example of a how question that doesn't include a why then you're statement that why is inherent in how is utterly wrong. I gave you one. Guess what that means.You didn't give one, you assumed you gave one, but I showed how it did include why (if at all a why applied to the question. Obviously if there is no why, it isnt' included.).

You didn't give one, you assumed you gave one, but I showed how it did include why (if at all a why applied to the question. Obviously if there is no why, it isnt' included.).


How did the boy fall out of the tree/

Taaadaaa!

Science should be concerned purely with the how. Leave the why to the philosophers and Deep Thought.

Science should be concerned purely with determining IF a hypothesis or theory is true. Once "science" declares how something happens it is doctrine and not a thoughtful exhaustive search for truth.

Because somethign without intelligence cannot by definition reason.

No, why ask for the purpose and goals involved in the event.
Hence there is no 'why' when there is no purpose..

How ask for the causality of the event.


Presumes that a reason, aka "a cause," requires intellgience. Again you are conflating the two definitions of reason.

Wrong again. Why asks for an explanation of what occurred. Purpose and goals are ONE aspect of what why can ask for. Another aspect is asking for the causes of an event, which coincidentally how completely ignores.

Conclusion predicated on false premise.

How most certainly does not. How asks for a description of what occurred, but does not ask for an explanation of why those events occurred or why they occurred in the form that they did.


You must first ask why before how even enters a question. Knowing how someone else murdered another person doesn't even get asked unless someone wants to know why a murder occurred in the first place. I might know how a bicycle functions, but this would only be because I was curious why a bicycle can even work in the first place. How is utterly devoid of context without asking why.


"Why should something be the way it is" is a metaphysical statement. But asking "why does something function the way it does" is asking for a causal argument. "How does something work" does not prompt the answer to the previous question. How something works only tells what occurs and in what temporal order. Why something occurs lets you know what causes went into the necessitation of a given event.



Just because you are ignoring the implicit why in between each how question you ask does not change the fact that a why question exists. For every series of "hows' you have you must insert a why question in between each. Going from how a lightbulb works to how electricity works requires asking why does electricity cause metal to heat up.

NT

Science should be concerned purely with determining IF a hypothesis or theory is true. Once "science" declares how something happens it is doctrine and not a thoughtful exhaustive search for truth.

Declaring something as how something works, does not always involve giving a why to something. For example, if we were asked "How did the universe begin" and we could answer it, that does not answer the question of "Why did the universe begin" because to answer that is a far more philosophical question. If you answer "It began because the primeal atom did X, Y and Z" then thats not a propper why. Thats a how. It doesnt explain the reason, just the mechanism.

Declaring something as how something works, does not always involve giving a why to something. For example, if we were asked "How did the universe begin" and we could answer it, that does not answer the question of "Why did the universe begin" because to answer that is a far more philosophical question. If you answer "It began because the primeal atom did X, Y and Z" then thats not a propper why. Thats a how. It doesnt explain the reason, just the mechanism.


What is this non-sense about a "proper why"? When someone asks: "why is the sky blue?" they want a reason, and that reason involves a mechanism placed in context.


You'd be right about a mechanism not answering a "why" question, but a mechanism in context of occurrence does answer "why something happened."



Why is not necessarily a philosophical question. I can ask why about motives, but I can also ask why about causes. What causes a given mechanism be utilized in a given circumstance? That is a why.



To illustrate:

How does an object fall on earth? Versus Why does an object fall on earth? are two very distinct questions and one question does not answer the other.


How an object falls on earth is a description of its trajectory or temporal movements. But why an object falls is prompting the answer of "Gravity."

NT

Since when does a reason for an occurrence, a cause, require an intelligent agent?

There is a why to an apple falling to the ground. A decrease in the structural integrity of a portion of the branch caused the weight of the apple to be sufficient to break the apple's connection to the tree.

A how is then asked: How did this structural integrity decrease occur? Oxidation of the cells in the tree branch occurred over time.

Why does this oxidation occur? Hm... seems like we have gotten to a point where we can't answer a question. This must be an important question. Yep: "Why do things age?" is a pretty important question.

You're not answering a why question. You're giving the mechanism for it occurring. It's a misused of the question. We misuse question words all the time and it's common in our language, but when distinguishing between why and how, it's clear that one can't simply list mechanisms and claim they are sometimes why and sometimes how. See the decrease in structural integrity of the branch is very much an explanation of how the apple fell. There is not a point in the explanation where because it's distant enough in the causal chaing of events that it suddenly becomes why. Otherwise one could under you logic claim gravity is the reason why the apple fell. However, in the way it's being used that would not be an accurate claim.

Reason is a faculty of intelligent beings. But "a reason" is an explanation of why events occur. Why asks for an explanation of an event. How asks for an account of the methodology that occurs with an event. There is ALWAYS a Why, not matter what, when, where, or who is involved.

NT

Again, just because English is a weak language with poor structure doesn't excuse equivocation. It's clear that the OP and further discussion are not looking for the mechanisms of an event as the answer to a why question. You are giving an account of the methodology that occurs with an event and calling it how.

Why does energy transfer across collisions? Insert answer here

Give me an answer here that couldn't also be an answer to "How does energy transfer across collisions?

You are equivocating. The OP and everyone else is looking at a different question than the one you are trying to pretend we're asking. The 'why' we are asking is a different question than the 'how' you are answering.

You can't always get an answer for "why?" because there isn't always a reason for everything.

How = Science
Why = Religion/Philosophy

Which is why we never need another evolution/creationism thread. They answer different questions.

You didn't give one, you assumed you gave one, but I showed how it did include why (if at all a why applied to the question. Obviously if there is no why, it isnt' included.).

The question I asked was "How did I drink that soda?" The answer does not include a why no badder how badly you wish it did.

I'll give an experiment.

Here is the scenario. A soda is sitting on the desk in front of me. I reach out an pry open the can. I lift it to my mouth and pour the liquid into my mouth. Standard body mechanisms occur and I set the soda down (the body mechanism continue to occur). Repeat until can is empty. Throw can away.

The complete answer to how I drank the soda is available using what information is given in that scenario and an understanding of the function of the human body.

The answer to why I drank the soda, however, is not available.

Presumes that a reason, aka "a cause," requires intellgience. Again you are conflating the two definitions of reason.

Wrong again. Why asks for an explanation of what occurred.

You're doing the same thing. Why doesn't ask for an explanation of what occurred. 'What happened?' does. Why asks for an explanation of *gasp* WHY it occurred. Again, you are conflating two different definitions of the 'why'.

Why:


"For what purpose, reason, or cause; with what intention, justification, or motive"


I am not conflating any such thing as two distinct definitions of why. Why either references purpose, intent, or justification OR a cause. A cause MUST by definition explain what circumstances necessitated an event's occurence. Asking: "What happened?" does not suffice in this case to prompt receiving an answer corresponding to causation. Asking "What happened to cause this to occur?" would.



But yours and my contentions are largely a matter of intended usage for "why" as opposed to its over all function. There are, however, some people on this board who think that why can only prompt matters of intent or purpose and completely ignore matters of causation.

NT

Why:


"For what purpose, reason, or cause; with what intention, justification, or motive"


I am not conflating any such thing as two distinct definitions of why. Why either references purpose, intent, or justification OR a cause. A cause MUST by definition explain what circumstances necessitated an event's occurence. Asking: "What happened?" does not suffice in this case to prompt receiving an answer corresponding to causation. Asking "What happened to cause this to occur?" would.



But yours and my contentions are largely a matter of intended usage for "why" as opposed to its over all function. There are, however, some people on this board who think that why can only prompt matters of intent or purpose and completely ignore matters of causation.

NT

Yes, when someone has an intended usage of a word and you use a different usage than their intended usage in order to argue with them, that's called the fallacy of equivocation and it's called a fallacy for a reason. It's because... dumdumdum... it's fallacious.

No one is arguing it can't be used the way you're using. You simply aren't answering the question he ACTUALLY was talking about. He even gave the example of motive to make it clear what exactly he was talking about. And because you're not talking about what others are talking about, you're arguments against other people are quite simply wrong.

How and why are both important questions. Here are some whys:
Why did (insert random name here) get sick after getting too close to that rock?
answer: Because that rock was radioactive.
Why did that apple fall?
answer: Because it's gravitational pull reacted to Earth's gravitational pull and it seperated from the branch because it's twig thing was weakened.
Why did he die?
answer: His body couldn't cope with the stress caused by massive blood loss that resulted after he was shot in the belly.

And of course, murder. Let's say your friend was murdered by Mr. X. Here are some why scenerios:

1. Your friend was trying to kill Mr. X in a robbery attempt, so Mr. X had no choice but to kill your friend in self defense.

2. Mr. X wanted your friend dead. Mr. X is clearly dangerous.

Would it matter to you if scenerio 1 was true? What about 2? Would you understand Mr. X's reason if scenerio one was true? What about 2?

Clearly, why can be used in questions, no matter if sentience is involved or not. Why can be an important extension of "what" and "how". If no one asked "Why?", what answers would we still have? What how's were asked in result of some why's? If no why's were asked, said how's would never have been asked. Both are nearly as important as the otherm with why having a slight lead.

Yes, when someone has an intended usage of a word and you use a different usage than their intended usage in order to argue with them, that's called the fallacy of equivocation and it's called a fallacy for a reason. It's because... dumdumdum... it's fallacious.

No one is arguing it can't be used the way you're using. You simply aren't answering the question he ACTUALLY was talking about. He even gave the example of motive to make it clear what exactly he was talking about. And because you're not talking about what others are talking about, you're arguments against other people are quite simply wrong.


You are making the presumption that when someone asserts that they are using a single definition, and then make a claim which regards all definitions that they are making a valid argument.

Sorry, but my logic classes weren't so long ago for me to know how logic works, and when you reach a conclusion based on a false premise, then your conclusion is invalidated.



They can say "Why does X" when speaking about "Why according to X" definition, but to say that ALL why is "X" because "X" is ONE of its definitions does NOT hold water.



To make clear what my point is: Damor is trying to use the example of motive to prove that motive is the ONLY purpose of why. You will note that he and those who agree with him are asserting that "why" is only a matter of philosophy. And this is clearly a fallacious argument, and my rebuttal of said argument is sound.




Avika:

I've already addressed pretty much all of those points, and no one here seems to even agree that they are correct. I'm beginning to suspect that people on NS don't even recognize that "Why" can be used to ask for cause.

NT

There's something in every atheist, itching to believe, and something in every believer, itching to doubt.

There's something in every atheist, itching to believe, and something in every believer, itching to doubt.

Why is that the way things are Ginnoria? :)

NT

You are making the presumption that when someone asserts that they are using a single definition, and then make a claim which regards all definitions that they are making a valid argument.

Sorry, but my logic classes weren't so long ago for me to know how logic works, and when you reach a conclusion based on a false premise, then your conclusion is invalidated.

Actually, that's a fallacy as well. Your conclusion isn't validited. It's not invalidated unless it's shown to be wrong.

Ex: I am 6'1" and you are 5'8" therefore I can see the top of your head when we stand erect facing each other.

Even if you show that my height is wrong or yours is, I may still be able to see the top of your head in that scenario. It's called Argumentum ad Logicam and while a point may be considered unsupported in a debate under the circumstances you proposed it does not make the conclusion invalid. It just means that it hasn't been properly supported (assuming the remaining supports are not enough).

Meanwhile, your assesment of what they said is false. They used it in a particular way and never claimed to be using it in the way you're talking about. You changed the usage in order to make an argument. That's called Equivocation.

They can say "Why does X" when speaking about "Why according to X" definition, but to say that ALL why is "X" because "X" is ONE of its definitions does NOT hold water.

Good thing no one said that. Can you guess which logical fallacy you just used that time?

To make clear what my point is: Damor is trying to use the example of motive to prove that motive is the ONLY purpose of why. You will note that he and those who agree with him are asserting that "why" is only a matter of philosophy. And this is clearly a fallacious argument, and my rebuttal of said argument is sound.

No, he isn't. He is trying to discuss a particular use of the word. His example gives more context to his use. You are trying to use a different use of the word. No one said it's the ONLY purpose. It's just the ONLY purpose WE'RE discussing.

Avika:

I've already addressed pretty much all of those points, and no one here seems to even agree that they are correct. I'm beginning to suspect that people on NS don't even recognize that "Why" can be used to ask for cause.

NT
Or perhaps, that's not what we're talking about and we're better than you at actually addressing the topic.

I relate this question particually to the growing discussion between several misguided religious people and scientists specificly, but also in general. I beleieve that in any situation, the answer to the question of "why" serves us much more and is far more important than "how" could ever be. I think if we knew for certian why the universe was created, it would change our lives far more radically than if we knew for certian how it was created.
Why relates to the reasons behind actions from beings with volitional consciousness. It's a psychological term.

There is no "why" for the universe. It simply is. Just like the rest of the metaphysically given. There are no "why"s for them.

You can't always get an answer for "why?" because there isn't always a reason for everything.
You can't always get what ya want .... but if you try sometimes, you just might find ... *da da da dum dum*

Actually Jocabia you aren't even addressing the fallacy I'm speaking of, and then go on to claim that my rebuttal is a fallacy, which isn't even a proper use of the word fallacy I might add. A fallacy is using a logical relationship which does not preserve the truth value of the statements across the relationship. You are claiming that my assertion of fallacy is false, and that is simply that: a false assertion.

But what I am addressing is a fallacious use of modals. Just because some uses of "why" constitute "X" does NOT mean all uses of "why" constitute an "X." You can google this fallacy if you like, but in the final analysis logic will show I am correct on this matter.



Or you could be ignoring the very fact that just about every other poster has said flatly: Why = philosophical/metaphysical... Care to actually look at the facts instead of incorrectly asserting fallacy. Even if I was using generalizations, which I am not since my observations are based on an empirical fact: the reality of people making said statements, I would be making a false assertion since I am NOT establishing a false relationship through the use of generalizations. The over-generalization is a subset of modality errors in logic, and I am showing that others are guilty of this.


Try checking your facts Jocabia:

'Why' implies there is reasoning behind the event being questioned. But not all events are caused (indirectly or otherwise) by intelligent agents.
There is no 'why' to an apple falling to the ground, unless some intelligence created gravity or dropped the apple or caused it to drop, or in some other way plays a role in the causation. The apple falls not for a reason, it simply does for none at all.
Of course, it doesn't help that people anthropomorphise everything.. You'll hear people say the tree wants its apples to fall. Yes, right, thinking trees..

Then take a look at posts by "The Ogiek People" "Deep Kimchi" and "Pasture Pastry" in addition to Damor. The simple fact is people ARE arguing that "why" is entirely philosophical and I am refuting their claims. So are you really willing to keep defending them?



I relate this question particually to the growing discussion between several misguided religious people and scientists specificly, but also in general. I beleieve that in any situation, the answer to the question of "why" serves us much more and is far more important than "how" could ever be. I think if we knew for certian why the universe was created, it would change our lives far more radically than if we knew for certian how it was created.

But like I said, its much more wide than that. For example in a murder case, the motive (why someone was killed) gives many more avenues of enquiry than the how can I think. I'm sure there are other situations too, so please, discuss.


Or perhaps I am actually addressing the topic of the thread, and you seem to think that you have some right to dictate what others can discuss? The way I see it others have attempted to argue something which is false, and justify that through the use of fallacious reasoning. Ergo I am arguing against it. Exactly where did someone state that they were arguing only about a single definition of why? If you can find me evidence of that, then I will consider myself no to be arguing against that person, but there are still quite a few people who are arguing in a way that bears debate. No amount of opinion on your part will change this.

NT

Actually Jocabia you aren't even addressing the fallacy I'm speaking of, and then go on to claim that my rebuttal is a fallacy, which isn't even a proper use of the word fallacy I might add. A fallacy is using a logical relationship which does not preserve the truth value of the statements across the relationship. You are claiming that my assertion of fallacy is false, and that is simply that: a false assertion.

Your assertion doesn't follow logic and your conclusion, that you've excluded their conclusion, is false. It's a logical fallacy. I'm sorry you're not familiar with it. I'm not claiming it's false. I'm arguing that your argument is invalid, not your conclusion. Your conclusion may or may not be invalid. That's the point. You are trying to suggest I'm making the same mistake you are. I'm not. I won't. I'm well aware your faulty logic has nothing to do with whether or not the conclusion is false.

But what I am addressing is a fallacious use of modals. Just because some uses of "why" constitute "X" does NOT mean all uses of "why" constitute an "X." You can google this fallacy if you like, but in the final analysis logic will show I am correct on this matter.

Lying doesn't suit you. You're arguing that the models are wrong. You said the conclusion was. Not the same thing.

when you reach a conclusion based on a false premise, then your conclusion is invalidated.

Hmmm... yep, you were just talking about the arguments. Oh, wait... nope, you weren't. And that's called 'PWNed'.

Or you could be ignoring the very fact that just about every other poster has said flatly: Why = philosophical/metaphysical... Care to actually look at the facts instead of incorrectly asserting fallacy. Even if I was using generalizations, which I am not since my observations are based on an empirical fact: the reality of people making said statements, I would be making a false assertion since I am NOT establishing a false relationship through the use of generalizations. The over-generalization is a subset of modality errors in logic, and I am showing that others are guilty of this.


Try checking your facts Jocabia:



Then take a look at posts by "The Ogiek People" "Deep Kimchi" and "Pasture Pastry" in addition to Damor. The simple fact is people ARE arguing that "why" is entirely philosophical and I am refuting their claims. So are you really willing to keep defending them?

You mean *gasp* they are talking about the use of 'why' by the OP. I suppose if they said 'dog = man's best friend' then they MUST be also referring to usage referring to unattractive women. Golly, I'm glad that you cleared that up for me. Here I was under the mistaken impression that when someone is using a particular usage of a word and talking about it, that other usages don't necessarily apply. I can't wait to inform all of the people who though context mattered.

Or perhaps I am actually addressing the topic of the thread, and you seem to think that you have some right to dictate what others can discuss? The way I see it others have attempted to argue something which is false, and justify that through the use of fallacious reasoning. Ergo I am arguing against it. Exactly where did someone state that they were arguing only about a single definition of why? If you can find me evidence of that, then I will consider myself no to be arguing against that person, but there are still quite a few people who are arguing in a way that bears debate. No amount of opinion on your part will change this.

NT
I do? And here I thought we were talking about the OP. You admit the OP used a particular usage and you didn't like it. Now it's up to you to set the usage, not the OP, me, DK, and nearly everyone else in the thread. Why just one post ago you were complaining that no one would talk about your usage.

I'm beginning to suspect that people on NS don't even recognize that "Why" can be used to ask for cause.

By YOUR admission, no one is using 'why' the way you are trying to address. Interesting that someone you're 'on topic' while addressing a usage that you can't get anyone in the thread to use. Again, if you're not aware of the internet term for what just happened, it's 'PWNed'.

There's something in every atheist, itching to believe, and something in every believer, itching to doubt.

So very true. I would love to believe in something, if only someone could come up with something believable.

Unless it was done by a person, there is no why, at least not the way everyone wants. When someone dies everyone asks why. You can explain exactly what killed them and how, but that is not what people want to know. People just die, the universe just exists, and life just a happened to begin.

No one ever said there is a why.

For instance, there might not be a "why" for the formation of the universe. There often isn't a "why" for a lot of murders. Although that's really a poor comparison, since the universe coming to be appears to be a natural phenomenon while commiting murder certainly isn't.

I disagree. A murder requires motive, means, and opportunity. Without motive, it's not a murder. It might be something else like involuntary manslaughter, but it's not murder without a why.

Your assertion doesn't follow logic and your conclusion, that you've excluded their conclusion, is false. It's a logical fallacy. I'm sorry you're not familiar with it. I'm not claiming it's false. I'm arguing that your argument is invalid, not your conclusion. Your conclusion may or may not be invalid. That's the point. You are trying to suggest I'm making the same mistake you are. I'm not. I won't. I'm well aware your faulty logic has nothing to do with whether or not the conclusion is false.



Lying doesn't suit you. You're arguing that the models are wrong. You said the conclusion was. Not the same thing.



Hmmm... yep, you were just talking about the arguments. Oh, wait... nope, you weren't. And that's called 'PWNed'.



You mean *gasp* they are talking about the use of 'why' by the OP. I suppose if they said 'dog = man's best friend' then they MUST be also referring to usage referring to unattractive women. Golly, I'm glad that you cleared that up for me. Here I was under the mistaken impression that when someone is using a particular usage of a word and talking about it, that other usages don't necessarily apply. I can't wait to inform all of the people who though context mattered.


I do? And here I thought we were talking about the OP. You admit the OP used a particular usage and you didn't like it. Now it's up to you to set the usage, not the OP, me, DK, and nearly everyone else in the thread. Why just one post ago you were complaining that no one would talk about your usage.



By YOUR admission, no one is using 'why' the way you are trying to address. Interesting that someone you're 'on topic' while addressing a usage that you can't get anyone in the thread to use. Again, if you're not aware of the internet term for what just happened, it's 'PWNed'.


Then why do you keep asserting that I am guilty of logical fallacy. I can't BE guilty of a fallacy because I have not tried to establish a relationship of any kind. Some people are guilty of making statements which exceed the scope of their modals. What exactly is the relationsihp I am making? Until you can answer this YOU are the one who is guilty of a fallacy. Its called "Strawman."


I'm not lying. They reached a false conclusion by exceeding the scope of their modals. If you say ALL uses of "Why" are a matter of philosophy then you are guilty of a logical fallacy. What exactly is hard to understand about this?


Still haven't told me how I am doing anything wrong... Oh wait. That's right. I'm not.


Instead of a wasted attempt on sarcasm perhaps you can point out to me where A SINGLE POSTER prefaced their statements by suggesting that they were talking about a single definition of why when they made their statements that "why" could only be used in the philosophical. Until such time as you can do that all that you say in this paragraph is little better than ad hominem.


I admitted nothing of the sort. The OP asked about "why." He did NOT ask about any particular definition of why. When you make an unqualified statement, then cannot by definition be limiting the scope of your inquiry. The OP stated in no uncertain terms that he thought "why" was more useful in ANY SITUATION than "how." Exactly where does the OP establish that he is referencing a non-universal definition of why? Oh wait. That's right again. He doesn't.

Game. Set. Match. NeoThalia.

NT

Then why do you keep asserting that I am guilty of logical fallacy. I can't BE guilty of a fallacy because I have not tried to establish a relationship of any kind. Some people are guilty of making statements which exceed the scope of their modals. What exactly is the relationsihp I am making? Until you can answer this YOU are the one who is guilty of a fallacy. Its called "Strawman."

Strawman? Did you or did you not claim that the conclusion was false. You're aware that's an assertion, no?

You can say their assertion is not proven and not make an assertion. However, you have come to the conclusion they have stated something false. In fact, you said it again in this post. I pointed you to the fallacy. You don't understand it. I'm sorry. I don't know how to explain it to you better. You can destroy all the evidence for a conclusion and it can still be true. To falsify it, you must offer support for it actually being false. You've not done so, but you still claim falsehood based on a faulty logic. That's the best way I know to explain it. Try harder.


I'm not lying. They reached a false conclusion by exceeding the scope of their modals. If you say ALL uses of "Why" are a matter of philosophy then you are guilty of a logical fallacy. What exactly is hard to understand about this?

They reached a conclusion that cannot be reached using their arguments perhaps. That doesn't make it false. It simply makes it unsupported. Claiming otherwise is a fallacy. Claiming something is false is an assertion. I'm sorry you're struggling with the idea.


Still haven't told me how I am doing anything wrong... Oh wait. That's right. I'm not.

Unless one wants you to be logical.

Instead of a wasted attempt on sarcasm perhaps you can point out to me where A SINGLE POSTER prefaced their statements by suggesting that they were talking about a single definition of why when they made their statements that "why" could only be used in the philosophical. Until such time as you can do that all that you say in this paragraph is little better than ad hominem.

Perhaps they didn't realize that you had trouble with context. It's not ad hominem by the way, when I make an argument and make it in insulting way. It's only an ad hominem when my only argument is to dismiss you and not your argument. I did both. Quite well.

Dog = man's best friend.

Now do I need to show why that usage doesn't refer to unattractive women or do you understand the context there? Shall I explain it again?



I admitted nothing of the sort. The OP asked about "why." He did NOT ask about any particular definition of why. When you make an unqualified statement, then cannot by definition be limiting the scope of your inquiry. The OP stated in no uncertain terms that he thought "why" was more useful in ANY SITUATION than "how." Exactly where does the OP establish that he is referencing a non-universal definition of why? Oh wait. That's right again. He doesn't.

Game. Set. Match. NeoThalia.

NT
Hmmm... He didn't. Then why did he use motive as an example. Why does his entire post center around a particular use as well as nearly everyone else in the thread by your own words. Oh, wait... you probably want to pretend you didn't say that, huh?

I'm beginning to suspect that people on NS don't even recognize that "Why" can be used to ask for cause.

If they were using it the way you claim they SHOULD be using it, why complain that they don't know they CAN use it that way?

And that's how the game is played.

I don't know how else to explain this. They are guilty of making a false assertion predicated on bad logic. What exactly is hard about understanding this? You cannot make claims which are wider than the scope of the modal and have it still remain true.


If I make the assertion: All humans like fish, then this assertion is false if even a single human does not like fish; it doesn't matter how many humans do actually like fish; the statement will always be false. And it is exactly because the modal "all" causes the scope to include more people than for which the statement is true.

Claiming that all "why" are philosophical when one of the definitions is not necessitates the same conclusion. The assertion is false because it is predicated on fallacious reasoning.


And just so you know in logic the only way premises can be false and the conlcusion true is if they are disparate.

Ex: Grass is blue. The earth is a cube. Therefore the sun radiates infrared radiation.

The premises are false and the conclusion is true, but this is only possible because the conclusion is wholly unconnected to the premises.


Put simply if the truth value of your conclusion rests upon the truth or falsity of your premises, then if your premises are false your conclusion will always be false. When the truth value of X is contingent upon the truth value of Y; if not Y, then not X. This is a very simple proof. Y conditional X. Not Y. Therefore Not X.


So I have made an assertion: the other people's claims are false. My assertion is predicated on the knowledge that logic dictates this. And I can assert this because their arguments are structured in such a way so as to require the truth of their premises. The premises are false therefore the conclusion must be false.



Jocabia quit being obtuse. The original poster also spoke about the "why" behind the creation of the universe. None of this is proof of your position and YOU KNOW IT! Why a murder happened could reference the specific conditions necessary for the murder to happen (such as the would-be shooter having a brain injury) as opposed to a motive for the murder itself. Just because you THINK the discussion is supposed to be about motive does NOT make it so.

Beyond that just because the OP MIGHT have been using a singular definition (even though you can't evidence your position in the language he used because never once did he claim he was using a singular definition) several other posters have made similar unqualified general statements, and that error bares correction.

To suggest otherwise is simply being argumentative for the point of being argumentative.

You have no case. The logic supports me. The language supports me. End this pointless argument. Other people are guilty of making false statements.

NT

I don't know how else to explain this. They are guilty of making a false assertion predicated on bad logic. What exactly is hard about understanding this? You cannot make claims which are wider than the scope of the modal and have it still remain true.

I didn't say it was true. I said you don't know it's false.

If I make the assertion: All humans like fish, then this assertion is false if even a single human does not like fish; it doesn't matter how many humans do actually like fish; the statement will always be false. And it is exactly because the modal "all" causes the scope to include more people than for which the statement is true.

Yes, except you didn't prove it false, so that is a false comparison. It's because the assertion is falsified. You did not falsifiy the assertion, yet you claimed it is false.

Here is what you said and it's utterly false.

Sorry, but my logic classes weren't so long ago for me to know how logic works, and when you reach a conclusion based on a false premise, then your conclusion is invalidated.

Faulty logic does not prove something false. It simply makes it unsupported. You claimed otherwise and now you make the rather pathetic mistake of claiming that if you had proved it false you'd be right in claiming it's false. You haven't proven anything false. You haven't even invalidated past proofs.


Claiming that all "why" are philosophical when one of the definitions is not necessitates the same conclusion. The assertion is false because it is predicated on fallacious reasoning.

No one said ALL, Sr. Strawman. They are using a particular usage. You said so, I said so, they said so. Everyone agrees unless you're making pathetic attempts to complain. Quote them using the word ALL. Go ahead. I'll wait.

And just so you know in logic the only way premises can be false and the conlcusion true is if they are disparate.

You sure? Are you actually claiming that if x implies y then not x implies not y? Again, false.

Ex: Grass is blue. The earth is a cube. Therefore the sun radiates infrared radiation.

Great. You proved disparate logic doesn't prove falsehood. That alone makes your claim that a false premise means a false conclusion a faulty one. Meanwhile, what if I said you were born in Europe therefore you were not born in the US? Would you proving you weren't born in Europe prove I was wrong when I said you weren't born in the US? Nope. Yet, they aren't disparate. Whoops. Your logic sucks.

The premises are false and the conclusion is true, but this is only possible because the conclusion is wholly unconnected to the premises.

False. Yet another incorrect logic claim.

Put simply if the truth value of your conclusion rests upon the truth or falsity of your premises, then if your premises are false your conclusion will always be false. When the truth value of X is contingent upon the truth value of Y; if not Y, then not X. This is a very simple proof. Y conditional X. Not Y. Therefore Not X.

If y conditional x, then y is the conclusion. And you're correct, if not y, then yes, y is false. Wow, that's some great logic. Ha.

You aren't claiming not y. You're claiming not x. And not x does not imply not y no matter how condition y is on x.

Premise: x=2

Conclusion: x > 1

Now, can you (try hard, here) think of an example of a value for x where the premise is false and the conclusion is true? Yes, if the premise is true the conclusion is true but if the premise is false the conclusion is not necessarily.

You really should review this logic stuff. You're embarrassing yourself.

So I have made an assertion: the other people's claims are false. My assertion is predicated on the knowledge that logic dictates this. And I can assert this because their arguments are structured in such a way so as to require the truth of their premises. The premises are false therefore the conclusion must be false.

No, it doesn't. You don't know a darn thing about logic. Even if you proved their premises wrong and you didn't, it's does not equate to disproving the conclusion.

So which is it? One minute they aren't talking about a specific use of the word why? Then they are. Then they're not. You suck at this. You keep flipping your claims based on your arguments. Seriously, go practice at this and come back. I feel like a bully.


Jocabia quit being obtuse. The original poster also spoke about the "why" behind the creation of the universe. None of this is proof of your position and YOU KNOW IT! Why a murder happened could reference the specific conditions necessary for the murder to happen (such as the would-be shooter having a brain injury) as opposed to a motive for the murder itself. Just because you THINK the discussion is supposed to be about motive does NOT make it so.

They were talking about motive and they were talking about a particular use of why, something you complained about to another poster. Who's being obtuse? You. You claimed they didn't use the word they way you'd like and now you're claiming they and you have been using it the same way the whole time. Hmmmm... the funny thing is you don't even know how nailed you are.

Beyond that just because the OP MIGHT have been using a singular definition (even though you can't evidence your position in the language he used because never once did he claim he was using a singular definition) several other posters have made similar unqualified general statements, and that error bares correction.

Yet you complained they were not using the usage you'd like them to use. Interesting that we both recognized the same qualifications, yet suddenly YOU are claiming those qualifications don't exist.

To suggest otherwise is simply being argumentative for the point of being argumentative.

You have no case. The logic supports me. The language supports me. End this pointless argument. Other people are guilty of making false statements.

NT
You don't even know what logic is. I dare you, dare you to try and present to any mathematician that if x implies y then not x implies not y. They will laugh you out of the room. Logic supports you if logic works the way you want it to. However, it doesn't, because you don't have a clue what you're even talking about.

If you wish really hard to be right, it doesn't make it so. The amusing thing is you came into an opinion thread and made so many mistakes you actually made it possible to prove you wrong.