Focus on the “how”, not the “why” 12 Aug 2009 [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH40zaUxTTE&hl=en&fs=1&] Philosophy Politics Religion Science
Education More on the CT teacher case 8 May 2010 It now appears that the teacher who was forbidden to teach evolution because it was “philosophically unsatisfying” (ORLY?) was done so by the headmaster, Mark Ribbens, alone. Ribbens tried to impugn teacher Mark Tangarone, a teacher in the Talented and Gifted Program (TAG), by falsely claiming he was “a disgruntled… Read More
Administrative Test post 8 Apr 2010 Nothing to see here. Move along. I’m testing some new features. Do not play Mornington Crescent in the comments. Read More
Creationism and Intelligent Design Travel Diary 11: Notre Dame 3 Nov 2009 This conference is turning out to be interesting, in a kind of weird way. I am very much the agnostic in the Catholic lion’s den, but so far the lions haven’t so much as looked my way hungrily. I did have an interesting discussion tonight with Simon Conway Morris, and… Read More
Me too. I met him back around 1982, when he was doing a college tour of Australia. I worked for the local student union and had to shepherd him for ten minutes before his act. He was pretty distracted, so I didn’t get to talk to him much. He also wasn’t yet famous, so I didn’t know I had to.
If you want to hear a Celtic comedian making the case for critical thinking, then Dara O’Briain is your man. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIaV8swc-fo “But there’s a kind of notion that ‘Every opinion is equally valid.’ My arse! Bloke who’s a professor of dentistry for forty years does not have a debate with some idiot [eejet] who removes his teeth with string and a door, right? It’s nonsense. And this happens all the time with medical stuff on the television. You’ll have a doctor on talk and they’ll to the doctor and be all ‘Doctor this’ and ‘Doctor that’, and ‘What happened there?’, and ‘Doctor, isn’t it awful?’, right? And then the doctor will be talking about something with all the benefit of research and medical evidence, and they’ll turn away from the doctor in the name of ‘Balance’, and turn to some — quack — witch doctor — homeopath — HORSESHIT peddler on the other side of the studio. . . .”
I sympathize with Connolly’s sentiments of course, but “how” and “why” can often be used interchangeably. Why did the Cambrian explosion occur, vs How did it occur? Why is the sky blue, vs How is it that the sky is blue? You can argue that “why” often suggests teleological origins, but isn’t that just a subset of “how” that emphasizes subjective rather than objective causes? For example: Why do you believe in god, vs how is it that you believe in god?
In such cases, “why” just is a “how” question. Why questions are pleas for justification – give me a reason why that happens, or give me a reason why it should. Reasons why are calls for something beyond the how it happens. I think Billy is using this in the journalist’s sense of the five questions: how, when, where, who, and why?