9 ms·

He starts with his philosophy of what science is, which is apparently based on a TED talk by David Deutsch: "...good explanations for why things are the way th

by troymc 13y ago

He starts with his philosophy of what science is, which is apparently based on a TED talk by David Deutsch: "...good explanations for why things are the way they are." Oh no. Science, emphatically, does not answer why, or at least not the ultimate why. It answers how; it provides a set of models. To quote Feynman, "While I am describing to you how Nature works, you won't understand why Nature works that way. But you see, nobody understands that." from QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, p. 10.

lutusp 13y ago
Thanks for making this important point. Science explains, it doesn't justify or rationalize. And each of science's explanations is open to falsification by new evidence.
tbrownaw 13y ago
Actually, "how" is "why".
- Eliezer 13y ago
  Speaking as a relatively qualified epistemologist, I nod.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > Actually, "how" is "why". In a scientific context, "how" and "why" are generally regarded as separate questions. Consider the classic case of peppered moth evolution: the "how" is answered by natural selection -- through random genetic variations the moths changed color over time to match their changing environment. The "why" is answered by noting that the camouflaged moths escaped predation by moth-eating species.
darkmighty 13y ago
I agree that It does not answer why in general, but that quote in particular seems reasonable -- Deutsch is referring to the whys which result from more fundamental interactions (more fundamental models); although eventually, you reach the basic laws of science and then there's really no point in further asking why.
stmartin 13y ago
There are three things that only God knows: the beginning of things, the cause of things (WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY???) and the end of things. - an old Welsh proverb
harshreality 13y ago
You're interpreting "explanations" in a different way than he meant it. You're looking for philosophical or religious explanations, but scientific theories by their nature apply to more than one instance, and therefore explain, from one instance to the next, why things continue to behave in similar ways. If the many-worlds theory is correct and things are the way they are because this happens to be the one universe where they're that way, that wouldn't satisfy you because you'd want to know why universes exist at all, why the quantum fluctuations exist that lead to the big bang. If a grand unifying theory existed that provided a tautology proving that it, and only it, could ever be the underlying theory behind physics, you'd want to know why. Why is there physics at all? There are no underlying explanations of that kind. Even if you believe in God, why he chose one form of physics laws rather than another can never be explained unless someone has the good fortune to be in contact and write it down in a holy book, and someone will still ask why God made that choice and not another, or why that God exists and not another; any tautological argument for God can apply to a universal theory explaining all of physics: "it is because it is". Philosophy can only offer insights about how to think about human existence in a helpful (sociologically and psychologically helpful) way, but has nothing to say about the origins of physical theories.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > Why is there physics at all? There are no underlying explanations of that kind. But that use of "why" is not an explanation, it's a justification or rationalization. I may say that the Big Bang explains the present universe, but that explains "how", it doesn't address "why". > ... scientific theories by their nature apply to more than one instance, and therefore explain, from one instance to the next, why things continue to behave in similar ways. No, not "why," but "how". For example, natural selection is an explanation, a mechanism, a "how". Not a justification, a reason, a "why". Obviously in common usage, "why" and "how" may be seen as interchangeable, so this becomes a tempest in a teapot.
  - SpaceRaccoon 13y ago
    It's just semantics.
sp332 13y ago
Your philosophy is a couple thousand years stale. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

by troymc 13y ago

lutusp 13y ago

Thanks for making this important point. Science explains, it doesn't justify or rationalize. And each of science's explanations is open to falsification by new evidence.

tbrownaw 13y ago

Actually, "how" is "why".

Eliezer 13y ago
Speaking as a relatively qualified epistemologist, I nod.
lutusp 13y ago
> Actually, "how" is "why". In a scientific context, "how" and "why" are generally regarded as separate questions. Consider the classic case of peppered moth evolution: the "how" is answered by natural selection -- through random genetic variations the moths changed color over time to match their changing environment. The "why" is answered by noting that the camouflaged moths escaped predation by moth-eating species.

darkmighty 13y ago

I agree that It does not answer why in general, but that quote in particular seems reasonable -- Deutsch is referring to the whys which result from more fundamental interactions (more fundamental models); although eventually, you reach the basic laws of science and then there's really no point in further asking why.

stmartin 13y ago

There are three things that only God knows: the beginning of things, the cause of things (WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY???) and the end of things. - an old Welsh proverb

harshreality 13y ago

You're interpreting "explanations" in a different way than he meant it. You're looking for philosophical or religious explanations, but scientific theories by their nature apply to more than one instance, and therefore explain, from one instance to the next, why things continue to behave in similar ways. If the many-worlds theory is correct and things are the way they are because this happens to be the one universe where they're that way, that wouldn't satisfy you because you'd want to know why universes exist at all, why the quantum fluctuations exist that lead to the big bang. If a grand unifying theory existed that provided a tautology proving that it, and only it, could ever be the underlying theory behind physics, you'd want to know why. Why is there physics at all? There are no underlying explanations of that kind. Even if you believe in God, why he chose one form of physics laws rather than another can never be explained unless someone has the good fortune to be in contact and write it down in a holy book, and someone will still ask why God made that choice and not another, or why that God exists and not another; any tautological argument for God can apply to a universal theory explaining all of physics: "it is because it is". Philosophy can only offer insights about how to think about human existence in a helpful (sociologically and psychologically helpful) way, but has nothing to say about the origins of physical theories.

lutusp 13y ago
> Why is there physics at all? There are no underlying explanations of that kind. But that use of "why" is not an explanation, it's a justification or rationalization. I may say that the Big Bang explains the present universe, but that explains "how", it doesn't address "why". > ... scientific theories by their nature apply to more than one instance, and therefore explain, from one instance to the next, why things continue to behave in similar ways. No, not "why," but "how". For example, natural selection is an explanation, a mechanism, a "how". Not a justification, a reason, a "why". Obviously in common usage, "why" and "how" may be seen as interchangeable, so this becomes a tempest in a teapot.
- SpaceRaccoon 13y ago
  It's just semantics.

sp332 13y ago

Your philosophy is a couple thousand years stale. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes