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
Australian stuff Australian PM Gillard not religious 29 Jun 2010 She says does not go through religious rituals for the sake of appearance. “I am not going to pretend a faith I don’t feel,” she said. “I am what I am and people will judge that. “For people of faith, I think the greatest compliment I could pay to them… Read More
Biology Genes – the language of God 3: Why genes aren’t information 16 Jun 201410 Aug 2014 Genes – the language of God 0: Preface Genes – the language of God 1: Genes as Language Genes – the language of God 2: Other popular gene myths and metaphors Genes – the language of God 3: Why genes aren’t information Genes – the language of God 4: Why… Read More
Epistemology Pizza reductionism, emergence and phenomena 20 Sep 201227 Oct 2018 Debates over reduction in science are as old as philosophy of science, but in the 1960s, Ernest Nagel’s book The Structure of Science really set things going. Nagel argued that a goal of science was to reduce one theory to a more general and explanatory theory, so that one can deduce… 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?