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
Evolution Evolution quotes 1 May 2010 To understand evolution we must first understand the historical development of ideas on evolution. But to understand its history, we must first understand evolution. – Donald Forsdyke [H/T Piers Hale] Read More
History The Oxford conference 11 Jun 2010 … audio podcasts are here. This is the Religion, tolerance and intolerance conference I recently attended. I particularly was wowed and provoked into thinking – a rare occurrence these days – by Ben Kaplan’s talk ‘A tale of two churches’, in which he noted that religions in Europe tolerated each… Read More
Philosophy On dictionaries, movements and rhetorical flourishes 9 Feb 2011 Lately, PZ Myers has been on a tear. He has rejected what he calls “Dictionary Atheism”. I have to admit, he has a way with words. I love it that he can come up with such things as the Courtier’s Reply, his Complexity Design Argument, and so forth. It’s fun… 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?