Joseph’s post The Joke’s On You, March 7, and all the commentary that followed inspires me to add my own 1 ½ cents to the discussion of “why” questions, the meaning of the word, the examples in which the why-question (ungrammatically) appears, and which disciplines/professions are likely to answer why questions in which ways. First, let’s put “why” in context (text removed from context becomes pretext, remember?) The context of any word is syntax, but the context of any syntax is rhetoric.
An old-fashioned English teacher’s definition of rhetoric: the organized structures of rational thought expressed in language. We call these structures “modes.” That means they’re literally “modes of thought.” We can identify several specific modes, along with which disciplines are likely to use the identified modes. Each has a rational purpose. A few examples:
Narration. (story-telling, either fiction or nonfiction) Events of any kind related in chronological sequence.
Classification. Any discipline that concerns itself with categorization, such as management of any kind—even grammarians or dictionary-compilers. This mode is used by virtually everyone many times a day. It’s the way we organize knowledge.
Division. The same function as classification in reverse order. Classification groups items; division breaks down groups into sub-groups.
Definition. The further breaking down of sub-groups into singularities in order to isolate and thereby define, identify, or “name.” Adam was the first to define—or name—all the creatures in the Garden. Defining is the beginning of both language and intelligence. Its sole purpose is understanding, That purpose may be precedent for other purposes.
Argumentation. (law, debate) Examination of two sides of any question, ethical or other, for the purpose of decision-making. Two sides only; three would classification.
Causal Analysis. (Science, engineering, invention)The examination of cause-and-effect. This causes that effect, which in turn is a cause of another effect, ad infinitum. (Some eastern religions are based on cause-and-effect, by the way.) Causal analysis is used in pure science for purpose of understanding; in applied science, for the purpose of inventing, manipulating, etc.
This last rhetorical mode is the one around which the “why” vs. “how” discussion did its entertaining dance.
Now for my 1 ½ cents: Scientists use cause and effect. That’s their sphere. Why something “works” is indeed, as Sophia says, really a how question, not a why. (The giveaway clue is in the word “works”.) Why something “works” is ungrammatical unless it’s asked philosophically. It can’t be asked scientifically. Wisely, she points to a dictionary (definition is precedent for argument) in order to prove her point.
Much of the confusion and communication difficulty of modernity is due to the discarding of old-fashioned rhetoric (recognized modes of rational thought). Thus, scientists dabble in philosophy (not their territory) and, being scientists, they use their own rhetorical mode to pursue “truth.” Science and truth have no relationship. Science is about facts, not truth. Daniel’s comment that science compiles new “data” when old “data” becomes obsolete is on-target—because “data” are facts, not truth. Facts, by their nature, change. The distinguishing feature of truth is its immutability. Hence, no relationship. Philosophy (which means “love of truth”) is naturally in discord with science when science oversteps its bounds that way. By the same judgment, philosophers do not have the wherewithal that science does to deal in the causal analysis of facts. Their question, as Joseph says, is indeed “why?” The scientists’ question—regardless of the (incorrect) syntax in which it’s placed—is “how?”
Atheist-scientists become atheists by applying “how” to “why” questions. They believe they’re looking for truth. They’re not. They’re looking for facts. That’s why they never find truth. As Joseph says in his follow-up post, March 15, he was “merely clarifying the limitations of the scientific method.” Remember that science is limited to cause-and-effect thought. The difficulty with trying to tell science that it has limitations lies in history (remember narration?): After the “Enlightenment,” God (the truth) was dethroned in favor of Science (the facts). The Immutable Unlimited was discarded in favor of the Mutable Limited, and its disciples, scientists, accepted the mantel of Knowledge-holders in place of philosophers, who were pretty much discarded along with the Truth, which they loved (remember the definition of philosophy?) God knows science; science cannot know God. Science knows how; God knows why.
Thanks for that in-depth analysis Dena! It was very helpful!
As for the history lesson at the end, even though I know it quite well, it is worth repeating. That is such a key point that is lost on so many today (especially the scientists, who can be really, really touchy with that issue). Part of the problem is our continued use of the word “enlightenment”, it gives a false characture to that time period, it only helps spread the error, rather than correct it. After all the “enlightement” was not so enlightened; it was more of a mixed bag, some real progress in the field of science, and a lot of nonsense masqueraded as the truth. Then add in the fact that our very view of reality has been deeply screwy since we elected Ockham over Aquinas, and you begin to realize just how deep our problems run.
“God knows science; science cannot know God. Science knows how; God knows why.”
A line worth repeating.
This will probably be a bad idea on my part, but I’m going to dive back in.
Philosophers do not ask “why” questions, they ask “what” questions. It is not “Why is man here?” it is truly “What is the purpose of man’s being here?”–Mr Pearce actually helps my case on this one quite clearly in his follow-up post. Thus, the philosopher is determining the extensive relationship, something that cannot be determined from ‘why’ which requires the causal relationship (cause-effect causal).
Thanks, R.C. Yes, there was an enlightening of the scientific mind, but as we can see by the many rhetorical modes (not just one), science is but one tree in the forest. Seems a shame to cut down an entire forest and save only one tree.
Another misnamed event is the Reformation; it’s a case of misplaced letters: the Deformation.
Dear Kyle,
Sorry, but in your attempt at cherry-picking, you argue against yourself. No scientist would ask the question, “What is the purpose of man’s being here?” The question assumes a *purpose.*
” They’re looking for facts. That’s why they never find truth. ”
Looking for facts gets you closer to the truth than opinion does. I’m a Catholic, but you guys are off base. Philosophers provide sometimes useful opinion that can lead to a search for the truth through facts, but their opinion does not constitute fact. That’s why there are so many different philosophies of life.
Christopher Hitchens was a philosopher. You’re a philosopher. I’ll bet you philosophize differently, though. That’s the thing about science, it looks for evidence of the answers it provides, it doesn’t just look for “well, that makes logical sense, so it must be true.”
My eldest son has a theory that the more science answers questions, the closer the world will be to the one true God that created it, because God is truth and love. I agree.
Dena,
You are reading my post incorrectly. Of course no scientist is concerned with the purpose of man’s existence; it is the philosopher who is concerned with that, as I stated with the first word of that second paragraph. Scientists are concerned with the causal relation between things and assume merely existence and nothing more.
My intention of my very first post in this whole thing was that Mr Pearce was completely ignoring the fact that “why” is attributable to both the causal relationship (‘how’ as you three have put it) and the extensive relationship (‘what purpose’ as you three have put it) and that in doing so, he was being as supercilious and arrogant as he felt the joke was.
My latest post above was an attempt at mockery by trying to pull the same maneuver that Sophia had pulled: redefining the question to fit the needs of the argument.
Dear Tom,
There are so many misapprehensions here that I would hardly know where to begin if I were to address them all. But the over-riding one is a misapprehension of meaning and a predisposition to believe that I condemn science. Is it not possible to recognize the limitations of scientific inquiry without such recognition constituting condemnation?
You seem to have relegated “truth” to a corner you mark “opinion.” Then you place “fact” in triumphant opposition to “opinion.” I propose to you that fact vs. opinion is a different argument entirely and, as such, a red herring.
You come by this strategy quite honestly and it’s not possible to fault you for it, illogical though it is. Our contemporary culture is heir to the false deification of science that occurred during the 17th century. But many among those whose profession is science, those who have retained the integrity native to the human soul by God’s grace, acknowledge what only a brief review of the history of science reveals: that facts exist only to be superceded by other, often contradictory, facts. This is not a reason to abandon scientific inquiry–just a reason to acknowledge that the universe is bigger than we are. (That, however, I do admit, is an opinion, and you may disagree as you will.) With those scientists I am in complete compatibility. We are not enemies; quite the contrary, in fact–or should I say, opinion.
I never said or implied that science was all that was needed. That’s the red herring in this argument, and I didn’t bring it up. However, philosophy leads to differing opinions, which may be right or wrong. In other words, philosophy can’t answer “What is the purpose of life?” or, to put it your way, “Why are we alive” any more than science can. The statement that philosophy can do this through reason is denied by the catechism of the catholic church, which categorically states the following:
*****
159 “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” (Dei Filius 4: DS 3017) “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.” (GS 36 ‘ 1)
************
In the eyes of the Church, and I’m quoting directly, as you can see above, “Faith is beyond reason.” Thus, philosophical reasoning cannot answer any questions about the faith. That’s why different philosophies exist, and none of them are any closer to the truth than science is. You do not need a philosopher to find truth. You do need faith, but faith is not synonymous with philosophy. In fact, the two are often disparate, especially in the case of atheism.
Another thing particularly disturbing about Hunt’s article is the statement: “They’re looking for facts. That’s why they never find truth”. That is counter catechetical (see above), and implies that atheists can never find truth. They might not find “the Truth” (neither will philosophers), but they can certainly find some truths that can be believed by all. There’s a huge difference between a monopoly on physical truth and believing in the one true religion. To say otherwise denigrates the accomplishments of any non-Catholic child of God.
I’ll say it again, with more conviction than ever, philosopher’s can no more find “the truth” than scientists can.
Tom R,
I agree with you and with true scientists (and with Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas) that the facts lead us towards the truth. The problem is that you appear to be arguing that science is all that is needed. Since the God in whom you believe is spiritual, i.e. metaphysical, you cannot begin to understand Him except through an acceptance of metaphysics.
Perhaps it might be helpful to remember that “science” means to “know”, which is why the Church considers theology the queen of the sciences. What is now called “science” was known to our ancestors as “natural philosophy”, i.e the branch of knowledge that leads towards the truth by the observation of nature. The whole truth requires an understanding of not merely the natural but the supernatural also, hence the necessity for theology (the science or knowledge of revleation) and philosophy (most especially metaphysics).
Ms. Hunt,
You have done a splendid job in reminding us of the different modes, although breaking them apart by discipline seems a bit like a forced categorization. I think most disciplines use various modes for different purposes. For example, scientists might use narration for recording an observation or experiment, classification and division are heavily used by biologists and chemists for categorizing species, every discipline has its own specialized vocabulary which requires “definition”, argumentation occurs frequently regarding the proper interpretation of facts, and so on.
While the question “why does it work?” may sometimes be better phrased as “how does it work?” in some contexts, this would not itself negate the validity of the question “why does it work?” in all situations. A dictionary definition of “why” includes “for what reason?” If I ask “why won’t my car start?” this can be rephrased as “for what reason will my car not start?” This is a legitimate question and does not violate the rules of grammar.
I must also correct a misunderstanding about facts. As Mr. Pearce said (and I think all philosophers of science would agree), facts lead us towards truth. Facts don’t change, although the conclusions that we reach based on those facts do. When new facts call into questions the conclusions that were reached, the new explanations must also account for the facts previously discovered. Thus when relativity and quantum mechanics were discovered to contradict Newtonian physics, they not only had to accurately describe the observed phenomena that led to these theories but they had to explain the numerous experiments which were previously supported by Newtonian physics … and indeed they do both reduce to Newtonian physics. Science does bring us closer to the truth about the world that God created, although it is only one aspect of the truth.
Dear Mr. Pearce,
We may be coming close. Would you please cite me where, other than with reference to divinely inspired teaching (Scripture or papal encylicals), I am required to believe the following:
“The Church teaches that Augustinian and Thomistic philosophy lead us to the objective truth (i.e. not opinion) in a way that supersedes other schools of philosophy.”
Once you point me to that teaching, I think it safe to say we are in agreement.
I just submitted a poorly phrased question. The only question at hand is, am I required to believe:
“The Church teaches that Augustinian and Thomistic philosophy lead us to the objective truth (i.e. not opinion) in a way that supersedes other schools of philosophy.”
If a papal encyclical or Scripture tells me that is true, than so be it, it is. However, what I meant by that was that are you sure the statement you made with respect to objective truth is doctrine of the Church. I don’t believe that it is, but I have not thoroughly researched the question. In other words, I think hard sciences fall within the realm of Augustinian and Thomistic philosophy, and are thus of equal weight with whatever it is you call “philosophy.”
Beyond that, the only person on earth qualified to make such a proclamation is the vicar of Christ on earth, the pope. In other words, the rest of the philosophers on the planet are on no higher a plane than myself or any other hard scientist. The Pope has the advantage of divine inspiration to the truth, which neither you, nor I, can claim.
Tom,
Doesn’t the fact that Augustine and Aquinas have been canonised by the Church indicate that what they believed and taught has more authority objectively than the philosophy of, say, Descartes, Kant or Hegel? Doesn’t the fact that the Church has named Augustine and Aquinas as Doctors of the Church indicate that they teach with authority? Doesn’t the fact that they are taught with authority in every Catholic seminary in the world indicate that they speak with authority? Doesn’t the fact that the Church has for hundreds of years privileged Aquinas as the preeminent of all philosophers, dubbing him the Angelic Doctor, indicate that the Church believes that Aquinas teaches correctly? Countless doctoral dissertations have been written on the authoritative nature of Augustine and Aquinas. As a scientist, you will be very capable of finding ample evidence that these two saints teach with an authority accepted by the Church that supersedes the teaching of other philosophers. Certainly the Church would not dismiss Augustinian and Thomistic philosophy as mere “opinion” to be placed in a relativistic sense on an equal par with all other philosophies, any more than she places Augustinian and Thomistic theoloogy on an equal par with the theology of Luther or Calvin.
Overnight–nay, over the hour–there is a veritable deluge of posts who’d like to to counter some point or other that I’ve made. My problem is that they are different–not just one point–but many. I don’t think I can answer each one in one reply. However, a few over-arching responses may satisfy more than one expression of discontent:
Neither the Church nor I denigrate scientific inquiry. On the contrary, the Church invented it.
Philosophy is speculative by nature. It does, however, adhere to a set of requirements for reasoning that might well make a scientist tremble. (It’s not just “opinion”; nor is it “just” opinion.)
My point that facts are not truth is not refuted by the assertion that facts may lead to truth. How facts are interpreted does matter, but even if they’re interpreted correctly, they do not, in themselves, *equate* truth–that is the assertion I deny. And I didn’t say facts “change”; I said they’re superceded. Lest we forget, a geocentric universe was once a fact.
(What may be unimportant for some but something I’ve always found noteworthy: You don’t have to have any sort of facts, not even any sort of knowledge or “expertise”; you don’t even have to have much in the way of “intellect” at all to become a person who possesses Truth to a far greater degree than the most intelligent or educated person. Ignorance is not a barrier to grace. And the miracle of grace has no dependence whatever on research of any kind.)
Daniel, we are not robots programmed for certain modes of reasoning, but it is is helpful for all of us, including any ordinary layperson, to understand when he’s thinking in a way that will help him decide, understand, communicate, etc., depending on the task at hand. You said, “I think most disciplines use various modes for different purposes.” Of course. All of us do. I believe I said overtly that we all use classification and division every day; it’s how we organize knowledge. However, the “task at hand” does lean toward one mode more than another; e.g., science relies on causal analysis because the scientific method requires it. I buy groceries; I organize my shopping list by classification. I write fiction, but I’d write a very poor shopping list if I tried to organize it in narration. (Aristotle invented this; not me, but I think he did a pretty fair job of it, on the whole. And by the way, grammar has nothing to do with it. That’s a different area–pure logic.)
The Church recognizes them for their teachings, not the manner in which those teachings were generated.
The philosophy of the Catholic Church is one avenue to the truth and science is another. You don’t believe they are on equal footing. I do, and I see no evidence that I am required to believe otherwise.
This is NOT saying I don’t believe their teachings. It is saying that the Church has spoken about their teachings. That is not equivalent to saying their methodology is somehow superior.
@Dena Hunt:
After all that’s been written by Mr. Pearce and myself about scientific fact, if you honestly believe:
“They believe they’re looking for truth. They’re not. They’re looking for facts. That’s why they never find truth.”
then you are right to terminate the conversation, because there’s nothing to discuss.
I believe that atheist scientist do find truth, and are God inspired to do so. He still loves them, its the sin of atheism that disappoints Him. Many cosmologists of the 20th and 21st centuries have made truthful contributions to the understanding of the universes, despite being atheists. Those contributions are no less true because they are atheists.
In closing, I’d like to thank everyone at the St. Austin review for allowing the discussion to continue. However, at this point an impasse has been reached, and it’s pointless to continue. I pray that the grace of God be with us all.
I’ve been re-reading all this. Tom R. says, “There’s a huge difference between a monopoly on physical truth and believing in the one true religion. To say otherwise denigrates the accomplishments of any non-Catholic child of God.”
I have no idea what that means. I don’t even know what “physical truth” means.
Nor do I know how quoting the catechism (“Faith is above reason…”) illustrates that my post on rhetoric was somehow “counter catechetical”. I didn’t know we were talking about *faith*
In short, it’s clear to me that I can’t follow your thought and will no longer attempt to do so.
However, an answer to Daniel’s question, “Why won’t the car start?” may (though it sounds insane) be answered: “Because it doesn’t want to.” That’s because of the real meaning of the word “will.” In our modern vernacular, such misuse of “will” is common. Here’s where why/how comes in: You would ask a mechanic that question–because he knows HOW an engine works. You wouldn’t go to a poet to find out what’s wrong with your car. And in that ridiculous example lies the explanation of the difference between *how* and *why*, as well as an explanation of modes of thought, their appropriate addressee, and an example of how damaged grammar has damaged our ability to just make sense.
I can’t speak with authority on science or on philosophy, but I understand rhetoric pretty well. I guess I’m glad to be able to tell the difference between why and how; I just never knew before that it was in any way extraordinary–or why anyone would feel argumentative about it.
If the discussion had remained on the topic of language, rhetoric, or grammar, I would also remain, but it hasn’t, so I won’t.
Dena,
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my comment. The whole reason “why” is under discussion, if you recall, was because of Mr. Pearce’s original post stating that physicists don’t ask why. You stated that “why” something works is ungrammatical, and it was for that reason that I used the word in such a way, accompanied by the dictionary definition, to show that it can be grammatical. While I agree that “Because it doesn’t want to” would be a legitimate way to answer that question (and not dissimilar to one I have received from friends on occasion), according to the dictionary ANY explanation would be a legitimate answer, physical or philosophical.
While I could have phrased the question “why does my car not start?” or “why is my car not starting?”, and perhaps the response wouldn’t have been sidetracked on the use of the word “will,” I am a little puzzled by your reply regarding this word. “Will” can be used to signify the future tense without requiring a person to actually desire something, and this is its role in the example I used. “May be expected” is the definition which the dictionary gives when applied to future events involving inanimate objects. Blame it on sloppy modern speech patterns if you wish, but in the English language using “will” to describe an anticipated future event is not a misuse even though the event doesn’t involve volition.
I understand the distinction between “why” and “how” that you are trying to make, and perhaps discourse would be much clearer if the English language actually made those distinctions, but it doesn’t.
Dear Daniel,
1. Your question is not worded to indicate the future tense, but the present.
2. No dictionary discriminates “inanimate objects” from animated objects when defining “will” as “volition.” (I don’t believe you.)
3.(“I understand the distinction between “why” and “how” that you are trying to make, and perhaps discourse would be much clearer if the English language actually made those distinctions, but it doesn’t.”) Actually, it does. See The Short English Handbook, of which I was an unacknowledged (read grad student) editor. I very much doubt it’s still in print, however. That was ages ago.
Now, from one happy pedant to another: Have a good day. My part of this discussion is over. Let us go forth with the sure conviction that Small Words Do Matter–and that’s why we have different ones for *different* meanings.
Tom,
I agree with every word that you’ve quoted from the Catechism (of course!). Your problem is that you are treating all schools of philosophy as equal, which they are not. The Church teaches that Augustinian and Thomistic philosophy lead us to the objective truth (i.e. not opinion) in a way that supersedes other schools of philosophy. There is orthodox philosophy just as there is orthodox theology. All philosophies are not equal with regard to truth any more than all religions are equal with regard to truth. True philosophy (Augustinian and Thomistic) lead us to areas of objective truth that lie beyond the reach and remit of science.
I also agree that you’re wasting time and losnig money by going for the RN in lieu of the MD.As a RN with an Associate degree you’ll be a lower tier salary and odds are that you’ll be doing the least satisfying work. That can turn you off real quick. It will also take you years to pay off a college loan on a Associate RN salary.If you are considering this route as a means of decreasing the amount of debt you’ll incur, it’s great in theory but not too practical. Sure, you’ll have a loan debt of approximately $200K if you go pre-med and then med school, but if you do it the way you are planning, you’ll have a debt of only around $160K-$180K. To achieve that, you’ll lose 3-5 years on the back end (after completing residency) which means a loss of around $1M.If you are concerned about getting into a university, check out your community college to see if it offers major level science courses. You can transfer into the university after completing 30 semester hours at the community college and you won’t lose any time in your objective.As for the difference in the two degrees the Associate in Nursing will enable you to take your nursing board exam. The Associate in science depends on what that curriculum is, but it may satisfy pre-reqs for a number of paraprofessional programs.