Re: [Phys-l] The "why" questions

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 11/28/2010 10:07 PM, curtis osterhoudt wrote:
> I've always heard that science can't answer the 'why' questions, but 
> I've also been really hazy on just what differentiates "why" from 
> "how" and the like. I've only really seen it as a tautology: If 
> science can't answer a question like that, we call it "why"; if 
> science CAN, then we call it a "how". Probably I need to take some 
> philosophy classes, but they've always struck me as questionable 
> logic and an almost fanatical refusal to anchor their premises to
> the real world.
>
>
> What IS the difference between "how" and "why"?

Sometimes "how" questions make sense, and sometimes they don't.

If somebody asks how a hydraulic jack works, there is a perfectly
reasonable physics-based answer:  small piston here, large piston
there, pressure, mechanical advantage in analogy to levers and
pulleys, yada-yada-yada.

On 11/29/2010 03:53 AM, Philip Keller wrote:
> > I would not say "f causes ma".  To me, that sounds like saying "1+1
> > causes 2".

Right.

> > But I know I do say things like:  "An unbalanced force causes an
> > object to accelerate."
> >
> > Or sometimes I ask my students to compare a diver standing on a
> > platform with a diver in mid-air and I ask "Why is this one
> > accelerating and that one not?" The answer I am hoping for is
> > "because one is experiencing forces that balance and the other is
> > not.  The unbalanced forces cause acceleration."
> >
> > Is this all wrong?  Should these questions not be asked?  Or should
> > the answer be "physics doesn't explain why"?

The "why" in those situations can be replaced by "how do we know".

 a) We know that if there is an unbalanced force there must be an 
  acceleration.  Given the force we can calculate the acceleration

 b) We also know that if there is an acceleration, there must be an
  unbalanced force.  Given the acceleration we can calculate the force.

Let's be clear:  There can be a cause for the knowing, even though
there is not a cause for the acceleration.  In some situations (e.g.
the diver) know the force in advance and calculate the acceleration.  
In other situations (e.g. a centrifuge) you know the acceleration in
advance and calculate the force.

> > But I know I do say things like:  "An unbalanced force causes an
> > object to accelerate."

I used to say things like that, but I've pretty much trained myself
to not do so anymore.  Instead I might say an unbalanced force is
/associated with/ an acceleration.  The point is that association
is symmetric, unlike causation which is asymmetric.  F=ma is an
equality, and equality is reflective, symmetric, and transitive.

I might also say that given an unbalanced force, we know the object
will accelerate.  I might even say that because there is an unbalanced
force, we know the object will accelerate.  (There is a cause for the 
knowing, even though there is not a cause for the acceleration.)

Sometimes I say "because" when I shouldn't, but I treat this as a
mistake just like any other mistake, and I edit it out if I can.