Stepping Away From Orthodoxy

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
No doubt you have an aversion to why?... Why is that?
My facaetious answer: why do you care? :D

My serious answer: I don't have an aversion to why, but outside of poetry I think it's a confusing question and not terribly useful.

For example: "why does the sun shine?" is a great question for authors, but a scientist would prefer to ask "how does the sun shine."

Or: "why do you hate peas" is another great question for authors, but outside of fiction the question is more sensibly expressed as either "what would it take to get you to eat peas", "what else do you hate so I know not to cook it too", or if you're a psychologist: "tell me how you feel about peas". :D
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
Applying this to Semi's topic, he's told us how his thoughts and feelings about orthodox Judaism have changed, and that's enough to satisfy my curiosity. I can't really see a 'why' in it either, just a bunch of 'how's.

I suppose there's a use for 'why' in the logical sense though as 'show me your calculations' request. E.g. 'I've concluded that the moon is made if cheese'. But the 'why' there applies to the proof; it's not to the moon and it's not really to the person either. If we see a proof as a logical story then 'why' becomes very much a 'tell me a story' question. Perhaps that's why children ask it so much. :)
 
Last edited:

semilargeintestine

BassGirl 5000
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
4,763
Reaction score
1,034
For example: "why does the sun shine?" is a great question for authors, but a scientist would prefer to ask "how does the sun shine."

Here, they're the same question, which is the point (or at least they have the same answer, which effectively makes them the same question).
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
Here, they're the same question, which is the point (or at least they have the same answer, which effectively makes them the same question).
Yep, but in general I find that 'why' has many fictional answers, while 'how' has one factual answer. My poor little pedantic mind gets very confused when people say 'Why don't you like ice-cream?' It goes off searching for a proof that me not liking ice-cream is inevitable. I actually have to switch tracks to realise that the question was meant to be, 'How could you possibly not like ice-cream?' That's much easier to answer: my mouth feels horrible for hours after I eat it, and I associate the flavour of ice-cream with that feeling.
 

bigb

Gun in Mouth Blues
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Messages
517
Reaction score
72
Location
Baltimore MD
Yep, but in general I find that 'why' has many fictional answers, while 'how' has one factual answer. My poor little pedantic mind gets very confused when people say 'Why don't you like ice-cream?' It goes off searching for a proof that me not liking ice-cream is inevitable. I actually have to switch tracks to realise that the question was meant to be, 'How could you possibly not like ice-cream?' That's much easier to answer: my mouth feels horrible for hours after I eat it, and I associate the flavour of ice-cream with that feeling.

Do you mean you associate the temperature of ice cream with that feeling.
 

semilargeintestine

BassGirl 5000
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
4,763
Reaction score
1,034
Yep, but in general I find that 'why' has many fictional answers, while 'how' has one factual answer. My poor little pedantic mind gets very confused when people say 'Why don't you like ice-cream?' It goes off searching for a proof that me not liking ice-cream is inevitable. I actually have to switch tracks to realise that the question was meant to be, 'How could you possibly not like ice-cream?' That's much easier to answer: my mouth feels horrible for hours after I eat it, and I associate the flavour of ice-cream with that feeling.

I don't like ice cream because the part of my brain that determines that sort of thing functions in a way that ice cream does not trigger the "like" section.

For the record, I love ice cream--I was just giving what my answer would be.
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
Do you mean you associate the temperature of ice cream with that feeling.
No, it's creaminess and sweetness together that I dislike. They both feel repulsive after I've eaten them, and I associate that with the experience of eating them.

I don't like ice cream because the part of my brain that determines that sort of thing functions in a way that ice cream does not trigger the "like" section.

That's a story about how my brain might work, but I haven't done those experiments so I don't know if the story is true, and I couldn't tell you how ice-cream affects my brain. I can tell you how my mind reacts though. :)
 

Gehanna

Introvert
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
429
I like ice cream, but how could I possibly not like Tapioca pudding? .. I still prefer the why, but how has a place in my noggin as well.

Why do I not like Tapioca pudding? ...

I do not like Tapioca pudding because the consistency is inconsistent.

Ruv Draba wrote:
"Yep, but in general I find that 'why' has many fictional answers..."

I agree. Why has many fictional answers, but it also has truth.

Gehanna
 

semilargeintestine

BassGirl 5000
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
4,763
Reaction score
1,034
Why has your perception of the truth. How simply has objective truth.
 

Gehanna

Introvert
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
429
How now brown cow.

How did I post that versus Why did I post that?

How is frequently too mechanical for me although, once again, I do understand the importance of how.

Gehanna
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
How did I post that versus Why did I post that?
It's more how does it communicate vs. why do you want to communicate that.

How invites us to collect many logical stories and analyse them. Why invites us to settle on a single emotional story and sympathise with it. How is mechanical; why is political.
 

Gehanna

Introvert
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
429
Seldom do I receive invites to sympathize with the truth. I have also found that how too easily becomes a logical excuse for the truth of why. A thing that I used to hate, but now realize to be a formality.

I can agree that why is political and may be so by nature. How is not exempt from politics. Skills development is required to prevent the political utilization of how. The skills I refer to involve the ability to acknowledge why (regardless of any disdain or esteem attributed by self and/or others), and detach from it while also working with it. To disregard why for how sacrifices the soundness of judgment as does the disregard or political utilization of how for why.

Gehanna
 

semilargeintestine

BassGirl 5000
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
4,763
Reaction score
1,034
How only is contaminated by politics when people let their own biases or agendas encroach upon the question. The very nature of the question, however, is free from that. You're not asking a subjective question, you're asking to understand the mechanism of the way something works, and that is not something that can be changed depending on your desires.

Lambda is a great example. Einstein included a cosmological constant in his field equations because he did not like the idea of a non-static universe; however, observations proved that the universe actually is expanding, and Einstein admitted his huge mistake. The largeness of his mistake was not making a mathematical error, it was allowing his own personal feelings to cloud the objectivity of how. But what he wanted wasn't the truth, so the actual how remains pure.

When you ask why in a way that is not simply a crude wording of how, there is no true answer. The universe does not have a reason for doing things beyond how, as it is not a sentient creature as we understand it. Perhaps our universe as a whole is a larger entity that is part of something bigger (multiverse theory), but even if that were true, its "sentience" would not be as we understand it, and so why is still moot.
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
Seldom do I receive invites to sympathize with the truth.
'How' truths tend not to be very sympathetic things, though we can sometimes be grateful for them.
How can I fix my car? How does this disease progress? How can it be treated?' How will edcation help my child's future? How will age affect my mind and body?'
By contrast:
Why won't my car start? Why am I sick? Why should my child get go to college? Why do people get old?'
All are political questions -- they relate to the exercise of power, and how we feel when we can't exercise power, or when it's exercised on us. All invite us to throw our sympathy somewhere.

I have also found that how too easily becomes a logical excuse for the truth of why. A thing that I used to hate, but now realize to be a formality.
If 'why' questions have a definitive, truthful answer I don't think I've ever seen it. They have many answers, some supported by demonstrable 'hows' and some not. E.g.
My car won't start because I don't maintain it; because it's old; because it's cheap; because the guy who sold it to me was a shonk.

I'm sick because I'm always eating junk food; because I'm stressed; because the kids brought a bug home from school.

My child should go to college because he'll get a good job; because he'll be respected; because he has no clue what to do with his life.

People get old so they can move aside for the young; because otherwise the young would kill them; because life's a bitch and then you die.
The answers to why make great fiction; they can be very compelling. They're also a strange mixture of the provable (i.e. supported by a demonstrable how), the disprovable (a how will refute them), and the unprovable. They're also full of value-judgements, biases and assumptions. They're great at telling us who we are, but not great at telling us what's real and what's not.

I can agree that why is political and may be so by nature. How is not exempt from politics. Skills development is required to prevent the political utilization of how.
I think you're right -- in the sense that it's only if we have competent hows that we can stop the whys taking over. :) Copernicus and Galileo both had a credible how (how it is that celestial bodies seem to move) that got smacked around by the whys of the time (why the earth isn't at the centre of the universe). In modern times, opinions about how man may be changing climate are being smacked around by why we should do anything about it.

The skills I refer to involve the ability to acknowledge why (regardless of any disdain or esteem attributed by self and/or others), and detach from it while also working with it. To disregard why for how sacrifices the soundness of judgment as does the disregard or political utilization of how for why.
I think you have a point here, Gehanna. Because why relates to our sense of who we are, it captures our moral, political and ethical sense. In that respect, how informs why, and why should guide how (or at least 'what'). But I still think we over-use why in physics, and under-use how in morality. But in fairness, perhaps we under-use why in logistics, and over-use how in technology too. :)
 
Last edited:

Gehanna

Introvert
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
429
To Semilargeintestine and Ruv Draba,

A quick courtesy post to let you know that I have read each of your replies. I will get back to posting when I have some down time.

Gehanna
 
Status
Not open for further replies.