Agnostic.com

19 2

Can all 'why' questions be translated into 'how' questions?

"A general point that is appropriate to make is that science is widely considered to be concerned with questions of how rather than why. However, it is possible, and appropiate within scientific exegesis, to adopt the strong position that there is no legitimate 'why' question. All 'why' questions (including, to take the strongest possible position, in the special field of daily life) are actually convenient shorthand for congregations of 'how' questions. In other words, fully to understand a 'why' question (and its ineluctable flavour of purpose), we need to deconstruct it into its component (and purposeless) 'how' questions. From an atheist's point of view, all cosmic 'why' questions are either congregations of 'how' questions or meaningless inventions (in some cases, of course, both)." (Peter Atkins)

I agree that in the realm of natural science it should be possible to translate all 'why' questions into 'how' questions (and answer them by the application of what is called the scientific method (though some scientists deny that such a method exists!).
But Atkins insists that this apply also to the daily life (with its moral questions like, say, Why is it wrong to steal?)

What do you think? Are all 'why' questions just shorthand for 'how' questions?
And even if it was possible to translate the shorthand 'why' into a scientific 'how' : would it be useful to do so? Would we learn anything in the process?

Matias 8 Sep 9
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

19 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

How?

fedup Level 6 Sep 12, 2019

Why?

0

Any question can have multiple levels of answers. Both how and why can go on forever. The famous physicist Richard Feynman has a nice summary on this. Anybody who asked the question needs a frame of reference to relate it to what they understand. Either asking how or why is limited. You will either except the level of explanation as it relates to what you already understand. Or you will want to delve deeper even though you don’t have context or knowledge to understand it.

1

Why ask why? Try Bud Dry.

0

As I was once told by my High School Teachers, " To find the How we must first find the Why, to find the Why we must find the How."
To me it works the same with the old " Wisdom" and "Knowledge" thing, i.e. to gain Wisdom one must first gain knowledge then turn knowledge into Wisdom BUT first you need to have the Wisdom to want to seek Knowledge, no matter the consequences, BEFORE one can turn knowledge into Wisdom.

2

Inclined to agree with regard to physical sciences and psychology but ‘Why’ I would suggest is the central tenet of philosophical questions.

3

I think ‘how’ and ‘why’ are separate words for a reason.

1

There is never a sufficient answer to "why". Just ask a child.....or have them ask you.

0

"We shade our eyes and scan the decay. We know that this place, this country, this planet, is not the same as the last time we looked. There are more bodies. And fewer other things: choices, unlocked doors, democracy, satisfying jobs, reality, unplanned moments, clean water and a species of frog whose name we forget, community, and the trusting, trustworthy smile of a stranger.

Someone has been careless, cruel, greedy, stupid. But it wasn’t us, was it? We were inside, just watching. It all happened without us — by the hand of forces we can’t see, understand, or control. We can always go in again and zap ourselves back to a place where the firestorms and tornadoes and wars are never larger than 27 inches on the diagonal. We can do nothing out here. Why bother?"

[samsmitharchives.wordpress.com]

1

WHY would you want to do that?

@Matias That doesn't sound very "HOW"-ish.

1

I've always held the position that if you answer how, you'll also answer why. It's not a popular position because every neeeeeeds to know why and don't accept how.

@TheMiddleWay Your example doesn't prove your point because you can't solve for why either. If you backtrack the rolling back to try to figure out why it's rolling, you'll also figure out how it ended up rolling across the floor.

Now if you had an example where you could solve for why and not how, then you can say it won't work.

@TheMiddleWay As the 'Laws' of motion state, An Object in motion will remain in motion until acted upon by an external force, an object at rest will remain at rest until acted upon by an external force, etc, etc, hence that is the how and why the ball is either rolling or remaining motionless, theoretically.
As to the How and Why of the evolution of Life happened on this planet we may never know the answers or why and how the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West instead of vice versa we may never know as well, BUT those who truly want to know WILL keep searching for that is the nature of the thinking human.

@TheMiddleWay And that's also the how, it was thrown. That's how it ended up rolling across the floor. You don't need to know every other aspect of the throw to know that it was thrown. I can extend your why and ask why it's rolling the way it is, and you'd also need to know how they threw it to know why it's rolling the way it is.

@TheMiddleWay You can break down how they held the ball, the motion of their arm, the neurons firing after seeing the catcher's signal creating the decision. It can all be broken down to tell you how, and in doing so will tell you why.

The only why questions that can't be broken down into how questions are questions that deal with supernatural and metaphysical beliefs.

Human behavior is pretty much your last hope for a why but not how question, but all that could be broken down too if we had the capability to read a person's brain in real time. The only way human behavior can't be broken down into a how question/answer is if you believe in something akin to a soul.

@TheMiddleWay It's far from metaphysical. Like I said, unless you believe in something akin to a soul, all you're left with is physical brain activity. While you are correct that we can't do it now, there's no reason to think it's not possible unless you believe in something more than your brain. We are advanced enough in our technology that we could get a pretty decent idea of what happens with a person's neurons when they think or do something, but not without being strapped to a machine which wouldn't work on a pitcher. So if you deny a how just because you can't currently see every detail, then why not extend it to all hows? I mean, we don't have the technology to know the position of every atom in a fast ball and the air surrounding it to say 100%.

To me, saying that we can't claim that every why can be broken down into a how is like thinking the moon ceases to exist when it sets. Just because you can't see it at the moment doesn't mean it's not there.

Let me ask you this though, if the technology was there to read a person's brain in full and in real time, would you be inclined to say that their why can be turned into a how?

@TheMiddleWay But to try to understand the WHY first you need to find out the How and the WHY as well.
Without knowing/understanding them both together then are you NOT simply wasting your time?

@TheMiddleWay I think you're crisscrossing determinism and cause and effect. I don't believe everything is predetermined, but every effect has a cause. In your example with balls, I'm not talking about predicting where the ball will go based on the past. I'm saying that if you were to know everything that lead up to the present moment, you would know how which will also tell you why.

For your computer and brain examples, if we experience an effect, there are a trail of causes that lead to the effect. Nothing ever happens for absolutely no reason, with no cause. So yes, if you computer accesses a certain bit, that was an effect and there was a cause. Binary is just another language that can be read and if you were to know how to read it, you could backtrack and see how it accessed a bit and you would know why.

With a brain, any thought or emotion you experience is just physical, electrical, and chemical reactions. If a person thinks, feels, says, or does anything, you could trace the chain of causes and know how and it'll answer for why. Like I said, unless you believe that your mind is more than just your brain and its processes, then there's no reason to think that your brain activity is physical and therefore leaves a physical trail.

Like I said, nothing happens without a reason. My outlook on existence is soft determinism with chaos theory. Hypothetically, if you were to know every detail about every atom in the observable universe.. you'd only be able to predict with 99.99% certainty. At anytime anywhere, a subatomic could appear at random due to unseen forces beyond our observable universe. That doesn't mean there was no reason for it happening. You'd have to backtrack the events that lead up to it and it'll show you how it happened, it'll show you why.

PS - there's a reason "why" and "how come" are interchangeable. It's really one in the same.

@TheMiddleWay "I apply a mag field at a certain place and that bit will flip... but that how doesn't tell me why."

It does though.

'How did that bit flip?'
A mag field was applied by me.

'Why did that bit flip?'
Because I applied a mag field.

Same with the light experiments. If you knew the quantum physics behind how it is happening, it would most certainly tell you why. There's no philosophical mystery as to why it is happening if you knew how it was happening.

Once again, if we knew how @Matias neurons were firing, all the neural tracks of thought that lead up to it.. it would show you all the thoughts and experiences that lead up to him asking the question and it would tell you why.

@TheMiddleWay You know we're just going to go round and round in circles.. lol

But, for the hard drive, you've basically highlighted the point I am making. If you knew what the operating was, if you knew the nature of the hard drive, if you knew everything that gives meaning to the raw data, you would know exactly how it did it and that would also tell you why. Yes, without knowing all that information.. you can't answer how and you can't answer why.

'Why did the bit flip like that?'
Because the binary code told it to.

Then you need to know about binary code in order to get an answer for..
'Why did the binary code tell it to do that?'
Because the operating system issued the command.

Then you need to know the details about the operating system to get an answer for..
'Why did the operating system issue the command?'
Because it was programmed this way to operate this hard drive.

Then you need to know the details about the hard drive to get an answer for..
'Why is the hard drive operated this way?'
To store photos.

No matter what opener you use, either how or why, you'll be stuck in a chain of questions if you want to strive to know 100% of the answer.

Now let me ask you this.. can you tell me "why" that sequence is what it is without answering "how" that sequence was created? How would you answer that why?

Earlier you said that there are many equally possible reasons as to why that'll lead to the how.. but as you start to learn how, some possibilities will get knocked out as you learn more information. It's no different than how scientific theories get disqualified from being a possibility. When you're trying to answer why something is that way, you create or gather numerous theories (whys). As you start to research and learn more (hows), some of those theories (whys) will be disproven, eventually leaving you with one that not only explains how something is the way it is, but why.

Knowing why will tell you how. Knowing how tell you why. Like I said in the beginning, they're really just the same thing.. but many people feel the need to feel like there's something more to it, so they don't accept how as the answer to why.

3

"Why" and "what" are two different words. Clear communication is important.

Why (adverb):

  1. for what? for what reason, cause, or purpose?
    Why did you behave so badly?

What (pronoun):

  1. (used interrogatively as a request for specific information):
    What is the matter?

  2. (used interrogatively to inquire about the character, occupation, etc., of a person):
    *What does he do?

  1. (used interrogatively to inquire as to the origin, identity, etc., of something):
    What are those birds?

Source: dictionary.com

If only nature would conform to our language. 🤣

3

I think a scientist would ask both why and how something did that.

2

I totally agree with Atkins, as Pedrodhbds points out, why questions assume intention. On top of this, nothing that isn't already assumed to be true can be learned from asking why questions but tons of stuff can be learned from asking how questions.

If I ask: why does the sun shine?
A satisfying answer might be the sun shines so that we can all see and the plants can grow.

If I ask how does the sun shine?
Then we get an answer like: gravity causes hydrogen to collapse into an object with sufficient density to fuse into helium releasing light that travels across the vacuum of space to earth's surface.

In the first example nothing was learned, because we assume the sun is shining for a reason, and we already know that the sun let's us see and plants grow, and if you didn't know either of those things you now have a backwards, fundamentaly incorect view of the world, because plants evolved to collect sunlight and our eyes to see it. The sun was not created intentionally so these things could happen, the sun happen and evolution capitalized on it.

In the second question you walk away with true knowledge that can be used as a tool to execute agency. The deeper your understanding of this answer the more power you have.

If the first question is broken up into how questions, then the answer looks more like the first one.

Even moral questions work that way, I can ask why is killing immoral and come to an obvious answer, because it denies someone the right to live, but that could be broken down into questions like how does killing take away life, and how do we have the right to life, all which have answers.

1

Ever get caught in the juvenile trap of "B-but why? Wwwwhyyyy! Awwwwww.. why?" Never got that with "how".

0

There are why questions that are based on a presumption of conscious awareness and volition, and those are the ones for which science has no answers. There might be answers of a sort but those answers can not be proven. Why did I have oatmeal for breakfast? That’s just what I decided to have.

I think I understand what Atkins is saying though. Why is the gravitational constant what it is? It is a legitimate question reflecting our natural curiosity, we are not really wanting to know “why”—“why” is just an idiom. We would like to understand the gravitational constant in relation to other known facts so that we can better fit the idea into our world view. We’d like to be able to calculate the gravitational constant rather than just measure it. It might be that science currently has no answer for such a question, but someday it might.

“Why does anything exist rather than nothing?” I’d say that is a perfectly valid “why” question that can not be converted into a “how” question. Whatever answer is given is superficial because more why questions will follow. If someone says that reality fell into existence because of the laws of probability, then the next question is “Why are the laws of probability as they are? How did they get that way?”

I think we might have to admit at some point that our “why” questions simply have no meaning from a cosmic perspective, because our intellects are locked into an artificial symbolic reality of our own making. Our very concept of existence is based on objectivity, which is a contrived, dualistic concept, and the idea of causation is equally contrived.

4

Let's use the example of, "Why should I eat my vegetables?"

Translating that directly into "How should I eat my vegetables?" completely changes the nature of the question to the point that the two have almost nothing to do with each other.

While, "How is eating my vegetables good for me?" a possibly workable translation, it may not get an answer that would make sense to the person who asked the question meaning, "Why should I eat these particular vegetables, which have been overcooked to the point they have minimal nutritional value and even less flavor?"

Translation almost always depends on context.

Another example would be, "Why should I go on living?"

Translate that so the question and answer make sense to someone like my grandfather when he was 92 years old and said, "I've outlived all of my enemies, almost all of my friends, burred two wives, and can't live in my own home any more. Why should I go on living?"

P.S. Less than a week later I was at my grandfather's funeral.

1

Why questions needs a mind with some intent behind it.
In nature, where there is no intention, only things that work thus are more common, and things that so not work and so less common. It makes no sense ask why.

When we talk about humans, then it makes sense asking why, because there are forces with some intention trying to make some stuff happen even it it is not the most efficient way to do it, then there is a why.

It is the evolution case.
"Things are like this because it works." is a statement from the "now" point of view.
But when you look on the process point of view you get.
"This happened (the way it happened is the next question) and worked, thus became more common until became dominant".

And this is a "how" answer.

@Matias you could translate to how my mind took the decision and executed the action.
But this would be the same as treating space travel in terms of quantum mechanics, is theoretically possible, but the amount of work and the precision gained in the process makes it a huge waste.

1

Seems like we do alot of how and mabey we should slow down with all the progress and expansion. There are times when it is better and less damaging to sit and appreciate curiosity and beauty rather than doing so much stuff.

MsAl Level 8 Sep 9, 2019
4

"How did you get [go] across the street?" Is IMO cmpletely different than "Why did you get [go] across the street."

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:399783
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.