|
anthrosub -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/13/2006 8:07:25 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Noah
quote:
ORIGINAL: anthrosub
quote:
ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
Someone said science explains things. It most certainly does not. It models things and then attempts to make predictions based on those models.
I think you just gave a good definition of the verb, "explain."
Scientists explain why it rains by measuring the pressure, relative humidity, dew point, and temperature of the air. They discovered that warm air can carry more moisture than cold air. They also discovered that as air rises, it cools.
They then demonstrate how when cold air (which is heavier than warm air) collide, the warm air is lifted above it and is subsequently cooled. If it's lifted high enough and cools down enough, it reaches its "lifting condensation level" or "LCL" and it rains or snows depending on the season (also hail or snow can appear in severe storms in the summer).
Ever wondered why fair weather clouds have flat bottoms? Well, now you know why. Tell me how this is not an explanation.
Post note: I just realized something...in this example, I think I've just given a demonstration of how science can answer not only "how" but also "why." It's not always the case but it can happen. I think the "why" questions that science cannot answer are those born out of human interpretation and conceptualization (i.e., "Why did this terrible thing happen to me?").
anthrosub
I take your points, Anthro, but I guess it seems to me that any time that science answers a "why" question it is really just a paraphrase of a what or how question. "How is it that clouds are flat on the bottom?" seems to do exactly the same work that your Why qustion about it does.
Whereas if my friend says: "How is it that this terrible thing happened to me?" and I offer a scientistic: "Well, Gerry, you see your son got drunk and parked his car on the railroad tracks. Now Newton's physocs applies in this frame of reference and Newtons predicts ..."
In other words, in the sense that my friend suffering a tragic loss asks "why?" I think he is bust with an entirely differnt linguistic enterprise than the guy who is curious about clouds.
Even with the cloud question, you ca chase it back to a why that science is not interested in:
Q. But why should metiorology work like that instead of some other way?
A. Physics.
Q But why should physics work like it does instead of some othre way?
A. Pass the beer nuts.
See, that last "why" question has nothing to do with prediction and accordingly is just isn't much of a scientific question.
You and I can and probably are using words somewhat differently and that's okay. Can you see, though, how letting Science deal with prediction works slicker than snot on a doorknob and asking it to explain (in more than a facilitating prediction way) just opens a can of worms? ANd importantly that every scientist can do every study or experiment he cares to and justify it in terms of prediction? So again hewing to Occam's Heuristic, why not leave it conceptually at that?
Anyway I think you're on to soemthing with your last paragraph. I wonder if anyone picks up that thread.
Noah,
You got the gist of my point (and rather well I might add). You're right, science is not going to adequately answer the "Why?" questions like your example of the man's son who got drunk and parked his car on the railroad tracks. In those instances, the why is really an interpretation at best.
People have feelings and a lot of questions are born out of them. This is where science and religion go down separate paths and why some people feel that science has no heart. The emotional why is not the province of science and was never intended to be. I think it's okay to lean on religion to comfort one in times of trouble but I think it's also important to keep a perspective on what things religion can address and what it can't; which means understanding what religion is.
To me personally, it's beyond obvious that religion was intended to explain the unexplainable at the time of its inception but we've come a long way since then and for some reason, there's a lot of people who have issues letting go of parts of religion that science has clearly replaced. This doesn't invalidate religion but it does call into question (for those who must believe the literal word of the scriptures) the reality of their God. That will always be a barrier I think.
Beyond that, I've always wondered what started people needing to "worship" a higher being in the first place. My quess is their simplistic view of the world at the time coupled with the social need for some higher authority to instill control over large numbers of people to get things done. That set the whole thing in motion and it's been constantly reinforced over the past several thousand years to where it's now at a point where for people growing up today, it must be genuine (i.e., God is real). Many people are afraid to consider the idea that God may not be who they were brought up to believe. Some simply don't want to go down that road.
anthrosub
|
|
|
|
