Dear Grim and Vanna,

You are correct. Science can start out with why questions. Why does an apple fall down instead of up? However, that is a why question that can be transformed into a how question. We can observe bodies falling and make measurements of them. We can set up experiments. We can see how it happens and in what circumstances it happens.

However, where the why cannot be transformed into a how question science cannot deal with it. All scientific observations that I know of have show that the laws of physics are the same wherever science has looked. If one could devise an experiment to determine if somewhere they were not the same then we could ask how come when we found a place where they were not the same. We don't know that they are not the same everywhere so we are still stuck on the why.

Dear Vanna,

It would be arrogant of science to decide for us what is right and wrong. Science may be able to create synthetic life. It has already devised nuclear weapons. How we use them is a moral question. Some people think there can be an objective morality where moral questions can be determined solely by reason and observation. I don't agree with them. I don't think we can look to religion to settle moral questions either. The Bible accepts human slavery. Most parts of the current world no longer accepts human slavery. Most parts of the classical world accepted human slavery. The Bible in that area accepted the morality of its milieu. Why is slavery no longer considered moral? I don't consider it moral. Jesus had nothing to say against it. Paul advised slaves to be obedient. One of my heroes is John Brown who was hanged at Harper's Ferry for leading a slave revolt. Presiding at that hanging was the great traitor-to-be, Robert E. Lee. After leading the fight for slavery the vile (in my opinion) Robert E. Lee was honoured. I think he was an evil man. However, others thought he was a good man. Who is right? The answer is that we cannot determine what is right and wrong in that case as in many others as "what is moral and good" remains a matter of opinion.

"What is the basis for morality" can be a question for another string.

i live for the why questions

,<<.."Why do apples always fall down>>>.we can get decieved by loose questions...eg most apples get harvested...thus/most dont fall down..yet most hang/downwards


<,"Why/speed of light not appear to vary,>>.science advises the red shift/when light goes away from us...indicating...that we call light...is more complex than mere particle/wave....[heat...part of the 'light specrum..moves slowest of all

<<universe appear to be explicable/many ways,but not in others?">>.simply speaking...the ones we comprehend...have explanations...simplified..when nothing is that simple

<<"why are we here?"..as qualitatively different?>>.because we can only speculate/form a belief/theory...that suits..till the facts are ALL..in a row

<<gods/motive in creating us?>>why do lungs breath.../why does a woumb/co-create..the life=giver...lives to give/sustain..life..[just as gravity...[mass]..attracts mass

<<what would/God want/need us for?>>we need him/he dont need us..but mainly...logus../logic...needs to confirm...we are that which lives only for gods logic...to be confirmed

<<What do we have,..that a singular being doesn't have?>>.others/as confused as we are...we have peers/friends/lovers//loves/hates...questions



DAVIDIAN<<..You are correct./However,>>>>lol...<<that is a why question/that can be transformed into a how question.>>>in lue of a reply/...lol

<<We can/..However,..>lol

<<..where the why/cannot be transformed into a how question..science cannot deal with it>>>.lol.

<<It would be arrogant of science/to decide..for us.;.what is right and wrong.>>yes it is

<<How we use them/is a moral question>>egsactly.

<<I don't think/we can look to religion to settle moral questions either.>>.no seems its a human frailty...rather than trust/mere huh?-man...i prefer to trust god/good/grace/mercy/love/logic

<<The Bible accepts human slavery>>.so..wage/tax..slave...isnt slavery?...only debitors...can be enslaved...the bible reveals..freeing the self from slavery...is as sim0le as returning the masters/clothes..back to the creditor...what remedy mankind got now...we are all legislated...into slavery/perpetual serfdom...if not now,...soon

<<Who is right?>>

<<The answer is/that we cannot determine/what is right and wrong>>because even the wealthy...are bound..to the ursurors...

easy credit...seems a gift...

till you default

David f,
I haven't read the Bible for many years, but my memory of it suggests that it is a written document that atempts to explain in words certain concepts that may not be explainable in words, and it had to make do with a technology (which was text on paper) that was only available at the time.

Science may have made most of the major discoveries, and now it becomes a process of filling in the pieces. (eg if there is matter and antimatter, then is there another universe, or an infinite number of universes running in parallel and so on).

If there is quantum computing and nanotechnology, combined with perhaps a highly efficient means of travelling in space (and space travel at present is rather inefficient), then it begins to allow man to expand beyond traditional limitations. It also gives man the power to place life on other planets, or create new species of life on this planet.

Homo sapiens will become a new God to those species, even though the species will probably not be able to understand homo sapiens.

The above is not science fiction, but is happening, or being researched right at this present moment.

david f writes 27/05 6:06:11pm P46,

"Science deals with the ‘how’ questions. How does matter and energy interact with other matter and energy? It does not deal with the ‘why’ questions which are not answerable by the scientific method."

It is easy enough to ask HOW does 2+2=4. This is almost a simplistic exercise but is readily answered.

Asking ourselves WHY is a question with different parameters. We are questioning not only the operation but the figures and the relationship between the two.

As I see it, we are reduced to asking ourselves questions like; Why is 2 in fact 2? The application of reason to this question seems to resolve itself in absurdity.

Asking WHY does Earth rotate on its north-south axis enables the Intelligent Design hypothesis, where the WHY is answered by an imponderable.

Questions of WHY have properties or attributes that science is not equipped to deal with and therefore are resistant toward rational intellectual enquiry. If we must posit imponderables or absudities in a scientific context we are not practising science, as I see it.
In the matter of Creator and Law-Giver, I think the two can be treated as equivalents for argument's sake, for both are abstractions. The WHY question applied to them seems to also resolve itself again into absurdity.

"Davies asks another unscientific question. Do the laws of physics vary from place to place? Scientific questions deal with the evidence of our natural world or with anomalies that cause us to question the evidence."

Quantum physics disturbed a lot of scientists, particularly the particle/wave conundrum. Some laws of physics appeared to be insufficient, lacking in scope. But how would we recognise/perceive a place where the laws that governed its constituents were different? Would we know if it was there at all?

Dear David,

No problem about Jean Astruc. I’m probably miss details too when toggling quickly between work and OLO. Anyone, with my lack of typing skills cannot throw stones. I enjoy your contributions.

Dear David and Extropian1,

On Davies about mathematics:

“External experience is indispensible to both to mathematics and art, as their theme, but to a person prepared to inhabit their framework, mathematics or art convey their own internal thought, and it is for the of this external experience that the mind accepts a dwelling place”. – Michael Polanyi

Continuing the theme of one indwelling in a framework:

Religion needs be “considered as an act of dwelling rather than affirmation. God cannot be observed, any more than truth or beauty can be observed. He exists in the sense that He is to be worshipped and obeyed”. – Michael Polanyi

The religionist “indwells” within the framework of the experience as does the person who becomes engaged in observing a work of art or a play. They become circumscribed by the framework. Under these circumstances, it is surely possible to sit inside otherworldliness. Higher mathematics can also create abstract worlds (string theory, other dimensions and multiverses), where the practitioner might similarly indwell in a framework.

Where the religionist and mathematician might defer is, the former maintains his faith in the face of contrary observable experience, herein, challenging paradoxes serve a tests of faith(Tillich. Herein, “faith embaces itself and the doubt about itself (Tillich).

Yet, I feel Davies confuses faith with faithful (allegiance) in the case of the mathematician. Stephen Hawking did indwell in the Maths that nothing escapes a Black Hole, "only until" a bright grad-student pointed-out matter popping out the universe defies the second law of thermodynamics. Contrarily, Chistians "as a matter faith" believe more in the face contradictory evidence.