It's turtles all the way down.

[Scholar]

It seems like the majority of man's great questions end in infinite regress.Does anybody have an answer for example as to why life exists, that is not infinitely regressive, for I have thought of this a lot, and it is possible that I am just blind and oblivious to better theory or answer, but if so I would much appreciate having my eyes opened.

[Rie]

Life in any species and of any sort from bacteria to us fights without any compulsion to abide by any 'sanctioned' by anybody set of rules. If mutation is in order , then mutate it is. Life is an aggressive and often very clever adaptation of a species to being able to keep on living.

[David B]

I suppose that one could always ask why the universe is capable of autocatalysis, but my working hypothesis is that autocatalysis is how life exists, following Kauffman.

In general, I think 'How' questions are more productive than 'why' questions unless or until one is speaking of agents who do things for reasons.

'Why did you drive to Pembroke Dock?'

'To get to work'.

'Why is a snowflake hexagonal'?

That is really a 'how' question, I think, to do with how molecules fit together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalysis

David

[Scholar]

I suppose that one could always ask why the universe is capable of autocatalysis, but my working hypothesis is that autocatalysis is how life exists, following Kauffman.

In general, I think 'How' questions are more productive than 'why' questions unless or until one is speaking of agents who do things for reasons.

'Why did you drive to Pembroke Dock?'

'To get to work'.

'Why is a snowflake hexagonal'?

That is really a 'how' question, I think, to do with how molecules fit together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalysis

David

I agree, though, I don't know what autocatalysis is, so I should probably look that up.

[David B]

I suppose that one could always ask why the universe is capable of autocatalysis, but my working hypothesis is that autocatalysis is how life exists, following Kauffman.

In general, I think 'How' questions are more productive than 'why' questions unless or until one is speaking of agents who do things for reasons.

'Why did you drive to Pembroke Dock?'

'To get to work'.

'Why is a snowflake hexagonal'?

That is really a 'how' question, I think, to do with how molecules fit together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalysis

David

I agree, though, I don't know what autocatalysis is, so I should probably look that up.

Well, that is why I provided a handy link:p

David

[FormerComposer]

I'm not sure I know which great questions 'always end up in an infinite regress.'

As was pointed out, there are many questions that are better answered with 'how' than 'why'. Folks often, however, keep asking "why" after each "how" is presented. I find it to be the intellectual equivalent of the "God of the gaps" argument. What we have discovered is that the gaps keep getting smaller and smaller as more and more "how" questions are answered. The more I learn, the more I realize that even if there was a "why" question that made sense I will probably not be able to understand the answer.

[Politesse]

I suppose that one could always ask why the universe is capable of autocatalysis, but my working hypothesis is that autocatalysis is how life exists, following Kauffman.

In general, I think 'How' questions are more productive than 'why' questions unless or until one is speaking of agents who do things for reasons.

'Why did you drive to Pembroke Dock?'

'To get to work'.

'Why is a snowflake hexagonal'?

That is really a 'how' question, I think, to do with how molecules fit together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalysis

DavidSo the answer to 'why' questions is "don't ask those questions"? That sounds a lot like my childhood, only it was usually because the adults I was querying didn't know the answer to my questions and didn't want to think about it.

[FormerComposer]

So the answer to 'why' questions is "don't ask those questions"? That sounds a lot like my childhood, only it was usually because the adults I was querying didn't know the answer to my questions and didn't want to think about it.

I don't think anybody said that. A couple of us have just pointed out that sometimes "why" questions might actually be answered if asked as "how" questions. "How is there life?" can (in theory) be answered; "Why is there life?" is one that is less clear that it is answerable. We may discover that the why is because it is one of the possibilities of the hows. We may even discover reasons for the fact that there is life rather than some other possibility.

[Berthold]

Could one say it this way:

Inappropriate "why" questions are usually asked when a deliberate agent is erroneously assumed?

That the assumption has survival value (erring "on the cautious side") in an environment with dangerous predators has often been discussed.

[Clivedurdle]

Is that a definition of religion and superstition?

Posing why questions in areas where there are no agents?

[Berthold]

Looks like a viable definition. :)

[davidpbrown]

I don't think anybody said that. A couple of us have just pointed out that sometimes "why" questions might actually be answered if asked as "how" questions. "How is there life?" can (in theory) be answered; "Why is there life?" is one that is less clear that it is answerable. We may discover that the why is because it is one of the possibilities of the hows. We may even discover reasons for the fact that there is life rather than some other possibility.

Very good answer there. I would give you an up vote but all comments are equal here, it seems :)


I consider the question of 'why life exists', similar to 'does god exist?'.

The question is irrelevant, where everything that follows from the answers is the same. I would argue that we would (understanding it) and should behave the same regardless of whether there is a God or not, and regardless of there being any reason 'why' life exists.

[Clivedurdle]

Is that a definition of religion and superstition?

Posing why questions in areas where there are no agents?

If this is accepted, it has an interesting side effect.

Any assumption of external not obvious agency in a process is by definition incorrect. Therefore belief in gods is logically impossible.

[davidpbrown]

Any assumption of external not obvious agency in a process is by definition incorrect. Therefore belief in gods is logically impossible.

*Any assumption of external not obvious agency in a process is by definition suspect. Active belief in gods that act, doesn't stand up logically.

It could be that there are Gods not interacting and then there are those who believe in them - they aren't impossible, just redundant.

[Berthold]

There's a thread on this topic here (http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/science-how-religion-why-t17228.html).

[Schneibster]

'Why is a snowflake hexagonal'?

That is really a 'how' question, I think, to do with how molecules fit together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalysis

DavidSo the answer to 'why' questions is "don't ask those questions"? That sounds a lot like my childhood, only it was usually because the adults I was querying didn't know the answer to my questions and didn't want to think about it.No, they knew you were attributing agency to random events without supporting evidence.

Kinda like you're doing right now.

[Politesse]

'Why is a snowflake hexagonal'?

That is really a 'how' question, I think, to do with how molecules fit together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalysis

DavidSo the answer to 'why' questions is "don't ask those questions"? That sounds a lot like my childhood, only it was usually because the adults I was querying didn't know the answer to my questions and didn't want to think about it.No, they knew you were attributing agency to random events without supporting evidence.

Kinda like you're doing right now.

I'm what? Where did I do that? I don't actually think God keeps puddles in place, if that's what you mean. I do think the metaphorical puddle's interpretation of events is perfectly fair, and I wouldn't begrudge it to him.

[Schneibster]

'Why is a snowflake hexagonal'?

That is really a 'how' question, I think, to do with how molecules fit together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalysis

DavidSo the answer to 'why' questions is "don't ask those questions"? That sounds a lot like my childhood, only it was usually because the adults I was querying didn't know the answer to my questions and didn't want to think about it.No, they knew you were attributing agency to random events without supporting evidence.

Kinda like you're doing right now.

I'm what? Where did I do that? When you asked "why;" "why" is a question about the motivation of a conscious agency, and asking it assumes the existence of such an agency, in this case without evidence to support that existence. "How" is the appropriate question regarding motiveless non-conscious natural processes.

Why is it that every time I ask a question you try to pretend it doesn't require an answer?

[Politesse]

When you asked "why;" "why" is a question about the motivation of a conscious agencyAccording to you.

and asking it assumes the existence of such an agencyNo, it doesn't. There are plenty of why questions that don't involve people. In order to support the definition being here proposed, you have to ignore the way the term is actually used by most people. When a child asks why the sky is blue, they aren't assuming the existence of a divine painter. They just want to know the reason the sky is blue, and will be just as a satisfied with an explanation of why (how?) a nitrogen-based atmosphere will tend to be that color.

"How" is the appropriate question regarding motiveless non-conscious natural processes. Why? If anything, I think "how" implies a method or process and thus a doer. If I ask "how is the sky blue", it sounds as though I'm implying that the sky wants to be blue and am inquiring how it went about it. "How is a house built?" "How does a farmer know when to plant his crops?"

Why is it that every time I ask a question you try to pretend it doesn't require an answer?Depends on the question. But I don't think that was the case here.

[Rie]

Aren't you actually asking 'What components of whatever go together to make the sky sometimes the colour blue?'

You see plainly that I am no trained scientist but my observations are as sound as any others. I think scientists , established and comfortable with their theories and heroes in the field suffer from intellectual hardening of the arteries.

[Schneibster]

When you asked "why;" "why" is a question about the motivation of a conscious agencyAccording to you.

and asking it assumes the existence of such an agencyNo, it doesn't. There are plenty of why questions that don't involve people. Produce one. Make it a member of a class so we can see there are plenty more.

ETA: And make sure it doesn't assume the existence of an entity without any evidence this time.

[Eudaimonist]

It seems like the majority of man's great questions end in infinite regress.

Do they? I have not noticed this. Examples?

Does anybody have an answer for example as to why life exists, that is not infinitely regressive, for I have thought of this a lot, and it is possible that I am just blind and oblivious to better theory or answer, but if so I would much appreciate having my eyes opened.

Does this help?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogensis

I find that questions that end in infinite regress only do so because one assumes, incorrectly, that the regress must only occur in one particular way. Once one discards that assumption, one may find other ways that could have created the current pattern.

In the case of life, one may discover patterns of chemical interaction that could have led to the current pattern of reproduction.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Politesse]

When you asked "why;" "why" is a question about the motivation of a conscious agencyAccording to you.

and asking it assumes the existence of such an agencyNo, it doesn't. There are plenty of why questions that don't involve people. Produce one. Make it a member of a class so we can see there are plenty more.

ETA: And make sure it doesn't assume the existence of an entity without any evidence this time.

Why didn't you read the rest of my post?

[Schneibster]

Because you denied something without supporting evidence again; there's no point in continuing to read what you're saying if you can't keep things like that straight. I prefer to talk about reality, you see. When you deny obvious characteristics of reality, I have to stop, because the rest of your post is based on this fallacious beginning. Until it's fixed we can't go on, because the rest of your post is rendered bullshit by the fallacy at the start. You're going to have to rewrite it anyway; why should I bother to critique it? It's just going to make you mad. And if you correct the error, who knows? maybe you'll manage to prove what you were going to write.

I repeat, produce a "why" question that does not involve people, and that doesn't assume the existence of an agency. You claim to be able to do so; do it.

[Politesse]

Because you denied something without supporting evidence again; there's no point in continuing to read what you're saying if you can't keep things like that straight. I prefer to talk about reality, you see. When you deny obvious characteristics of reality, I have to stop, because the rest of your post is based on this fallacious beginning. Until it's fixed we can't go on, because the rest of your post is rendered bullshit by the fallacy at the start. You're going to have to rewrite it anyway; why should I bother to critique it? It's just going to make you mad. And if you correct the error, who knows? maybe you'll manage to prove what you were going to write.

I repeat, produce a "why" question that does not involve people, and that doesn't assume the existence of an agency. You claim to be able to do so; do it.
I did, and put forward an example of a question ("Why is the sky blue"?) that sounds more neutral as a why than a how. Why simply asks for the cause, which is not animate. How implies a method in that case.

[Schneibster]

"Why" elicits a "reason," which is something a reasonable person has for all their reasoning to justify or at least account for their reasoned actions.

There is no "reason" for the sky to be blue. There is, however, a cause for the sky being blue, and the correct way to elicit that cause is a series of "how" questions.

"Why" leads to an infinite regress, and the kind of adult response you described. Any of us who has spent more than a modicum of time around kids is familiar with this game.

Sorry you're having trouble differentiating formal terminology from casual usage.

[Politesse]

"Why" elicits a "reason," which is something a reasonable person has for all their reasoning to justify or at least account for their reasoned actions.

There is no "reason" for the sky to be blue. There is, however, a cause for the sky being blue, and the correct way to elicit that cause is a series of "how" questions.

"Why" leads to an infinite regress, and the kind of adult response you described. Any of us who has spent more than a modicum of time around kids is familiar with this game.

Sorry you're having trouble differentiating formal terminology from casual usage.
The definition of "why" from Merriam Webster:

for what? for what reason, cause, or purpose?: Why did you behave so badly?
–conjunction
2.
for what cause or reason: I don't know why he is leaving.
3.
for which; on account of which (usually after reason to introduce a relative clause): the reason why he refused to go.
4.
the reason for which: That is why he returned.
–noun
5.
a question concerning the cause or reason for which something is done, achieved, etc.: a child's unending hows and whys.
6.
the cause or reason: the whys and wherefores of a troublesome situation.
–interjection
7.
(used as an expression of surprise, hesitation, etc., or sometimes a mere expletive): Why, it's all gone!


Sounds like it's pretty common to use why in connection to cause, friend.

And look at "how":

in what way or manner; by what means?: How did the accident happen?
2.
to what extent, degree, etc.?: How damaged is the car?
3.
in what state or condition?: How are you?
4.
for what reason; why?: How can you talk such nonsense?
5.
to what effect; with what meaning?: How is one to interpret his action?
6.
what?: How do you mean? If they don't have vanilla, how about chocolate?

Fancy that, not only is reason a definition of "how" as well, so is the word "why". It almost seems as though your distinction is an imaginary one.

[David B]

'Why' strikes me as one of those words like 'Theory' that has different meanings in different contexts, most of which are over-fuzzy even for my fuzzy taste.

Yeah, people do use 'Why is the sky blue' just as they use 'My theory is....some speculative hypothesis'.

But used less fuzzily, a theory is something that has a level of explanation with a lot of supporting evidence, and questions about 'why... something' does sort of imply, to me, intention. Even if where intention kicks in is a bit fuzzy.

Why do antelope go to water holes? Because they are thirsty?

Why do plants generally grow root down and leaves up?

Because they get nutriments and water from the earth with the roots that have been evolved to do so, and sunlight from the leaves that have been evolved to use that sort of chemical factory.

But 'Why is the sky blue'? The sky has no rationale, even a quasi or rudimentary rationale, to be blue.

'How is the sky blue' is, it seems to me, the more appropriate question, even if 'why is the sky blue?' is widely used.

David

[Schneibster]

So basically you like the sixth and fourth definitions and I like the first and the first.

Highlighting "cause" in the middle of the phrase "reason, cause, or purpose" does little to help, when it's clear from the context that the phrase directly contradicts what you claim it proves. It just makes you look dishonest.

[Sensi]

Life exists because it must exist in order for us to be able to observe it

[Politesse]

So basically you like the sixth and fourth definitions and I like the first and the first.

I'm fine with all the definitions. You're the one insisting that every time someone uses a why question, they're somehow evoking the existence of a deity- your point only makes sense if why and how are never used as synonyms.

[Roo St. Gallus]

So basically you like the sixth and fourth definitions and I like the first and the first.

I'm fine with all the definitions. You're the one insisting that every time someone uses a why question, they're somehow evoking the existence of a deity- your point only makes sense if why and how are never used as synonyms.

But...Wouldn't using why and how as synonyms just be sloppy?

I would think that using them as synonyms would call for disambiguation. You seem to wish to avoid this...why is that?

[Politesse]

But...Wouldn't using why and how as synonyms just be sloppy?
So do you also believe that some of the definitions in the dictionary should be ignored, even when interpreting what someone else might or not be saying or implying?

[Rie]

But it's an innocent question about the sky being blue and it does pre suppose that somewhere there is an answer of the scientific type as to why in fact the sky is blue. I love the colour blue and I'd certainly like to know why it is blue?

[Scholar]

Lot's of good answers,and discussions. Though I believe that the point I was trying to illustrate was that of spending time with a child and the continuous why. Here is an example.

Why do we exist?To reproduce.Why do we reproduce?To exist.Why does the cycle exist?So that we may exist. The only way out of that series of questions is to close in the cycle somehow.One could also answer, because it has too,and repeat that answer every time the question why was answered.I mean in the end,it all boils down to no answer, or an answer that is not a true answer.Which,in my opinion as of now,means that humans are incapable of comprehending Why. I mean true motives and reason,not the varying degrees of answers that lie on the surface of human action,cause and effect, but the deepest roots of our existence. It's kind of depressing. Which is why I brought that point here,to find a better conclusion than that. I figured what better place than an online cafe filled with a fuckload of brilliant atheists.