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

[Hugh Haskell <haskellh@verizon.net>]

> 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?
To which I responded:

> Nothing's wrong with it, as far as it goes. From the philosophical
> POV, however, it isn't the end of the line. There are a whole string
> of further "why" questions that one could ask--"Why does air have
> 'resistance'?" "Why do the molecules of air impede the fall of the
> object?". . . and so on, until one comes to the "ultimate" question,
> in which case the answer must be of the nature "Because that's the
> way nature works," or something like that.

And then . . .

At 21:46 -0700 12/23/2010, William Robertson wrote:
> Exactly. You can keep asking why until the answer is, "It happens
> because it happens." Beyond that is the province of religion.

Putting the answer to the final "why" in "the province of religion" 
is debatable. It certainly isn't the province of science, but 
religion has little to contribute here either, other than more or 
less ancient man-made myths. Since those answers are speculation of 
the most idle kind, I would not give religion the comfort of thinking 
that they have found an answer to a question that science cannot. To 
assume that religion rules here is, just as accepting a "god of the 
gaps" argument, a dead end. Historically, science has repeatedly 
moved the limit of the final question down the road, each time 
pushing the "province of religion" before it. It seems clear to me 
that religion has nothing of value to offer as an answer the final 
"why" question, any more than science does--less, in fact, since we 
can assume that the efforts of science will in fact move the final 
"why" further along with time.

Hugh
--

Hugh Haskell
mailto:hugh@ieer.org
mailto:haskellh@verizon.net

It isn't easy being green.

		--Kermit Lagrenouille