Re: [Phys-l] About the "why" and "how" questions.

[Spinozalens@aol.com]

In a message dated 12/23/2010 9:35:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,  
kowalskil@mail.montclair.edu writes:

On Dec  23, 2010, at 8:59 PM, ludwik kowalski wrote:

> Bob Zannelli wrote:  "In an absolute sense the why question may have  
> no  answer."
>
> Not when we agree that "why X" is the same as "what  caused X."  For  
> example, "why was an explosion in my  microwaves owen today?"

And here is a more familiar illustration. Why  is a terminal velocity  
reached by a parachute? Because of the "air  resistance." What is wrong  
with this answer in a physics  class?


Ludwik

_http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html_ 
(http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html) 








Physics models are based on causal relationships, that's what makes physics 
 useful (and believable). But the why question something implies the  
question as to the purpose something happens and in that sense the why  question 
is, in my view, a category error in this context.   Objects don't fall to 
the ground because they desire to be close to the  center of the earth as 
Aristotle might have asserted, likewise it seems  unlikely, based on our current 
scientific understanding that the  Universe was created to satisfy some 
grand plan, anymore than a falling object  implies a general love for the 
center of the earth. Of course evidence to  support the claim of some grand 
purpose might turn up. However, it  seems to me that currently, all the evidence 
points in the opposite  direction.
 
Bob Zannelli