Register to reply

The difference between What Cause and What Purpose .

Share this thread:
Mentat
#1
Dec1-03, 10:42 AM
P: 3,715
The aim of Philosophy is to pursue knowledge, understanding, and wisdom (usually in that order). There are many branches of Philosophy, and each branch has it's own limitations, which are not usually limitations of the whole of Philosophy, but merely of that one branch.

Science is a branch of Philosophy, and as such must also have its own limitations that are not shared by the whole pursuit of Philosophy. One of these limitations, I think, is that Science cannot answer "why" questions.

Science is very good at answering "what", "where", "when", "which", "how", and many other kinds of questions, but it always fails at "why" questions, because it's not designed to deal with them.

The reason I say it's not designed to deal with them is because it is entirely based on Inductive Logic (that which happened in case A, B, C, and D will happen in case E). The Scientific Method requires that a certain experiment be repeatable, in order for it to "prove" an hypothesis, but this (again) is induction. Now, Inductive Logic is based on the idea of Causality. If there were no cause-and-effect then there could be no assumption that case A, B, C, and D were in any way related, so as to assume that case E (which occurs under exactly the same circumstances as the previous cases) will have anything like those results.

Now, the reason that the title of the thread is "The difference between 'what cause' and 'what purpose'" is because there are indeed "why" questions that can be answered by Science, but these take on a different form then the kind that I was referring to by previous mention of "'why' questions". You see, "what cause" questions can be phrased as "why" questions (though they can also be phrased otherwise, and so Science never really has to answer a question in the "why" format), but Science is still equipped to answer them. For example, if I ask, "why does the Earth revolve around the Sun", Science can answer "because inertia is keeping the Earth moving, while gravity keeps it from leaving the Sun" (Note: This answer can be re-phrased as "this effect is caused by the combined effects of inertia and gravity").

However, the "why" question of the form "what purpose" cannot be re-phrased, and can also not be answered by Science. As an example, after my having answered that inertia and gravity keep the Earth in orbit around the Sun, one could as "Why does gravity exist?". This is a "what purpose" question, and is meaningless in Science. The scientist would probably answer "it just works that way" or "that's just the way it is", since anything further explanation of their purpose would require something outside of the Inductive system(be it belief, faith, credulity, or whatever else).

In summary: Science, due to its Inductive nature, is bound to Causality, and thus cannot be used to answer "why" questions of the form, "what purpose". Science can answer "why" questions of the form, "what cause", but these can always be re-phrased into something other than "what purpose" (i.e. "Why does the Earth revolve around the Sun?" = "What causes the Earth to revolve around the Sun?" or even "How does the Earth stay in orbit around the Sun?").
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
World's largest solar boat on Greek prehistoric mission
Google searches hold key to future market crashes
Mineral magic? Common mineral capable of making and breaking bonds
Mentat
#2
Dec1-03, 11:50 AM
P: 3,715
Purpose, as I've mentioned numerous times in the past, doesn't exist except after having been assigned by a conscious being. A box, it would seem to us (conscious, sentient, beings), is "for" (it has the purpose of) carrying things inside of it. However, if I were lost in some cold wilderness, I would probably start a fire with the cardboard of this box, and thus the purpose of that box would not be to carry something, but to fuel my fire. Thus, purpose is not an intrinsic property of anything, but is assigned by conscious beings.
Fliption
#3
Dec1-03, 01:02 PM
P: 1,032
Originally posted by Mentat
purpose is not an intrinsic property of anything, but is assigned by conscious beings.
Overall this is a good clarification. I see people getting confused by the use of the "how, what, where, why" distinctions all the time. Those are really just sloppy ways to make distinctions but they sound good so people use them.

But when thinking upon your comments above in conjunction with everything else you posted, it sounds like you would conclude that all other branches of philosphy (except for science)deal with the gathering of knowledge about non-intrinsic properties. One of the reasons why I never thought of things in this way is because I never thought of science as a branch of philosophy but rather, a tool of philosophy. So science as a tool can be used by any of the branches of philosophy to answer all relevant questions. Philosophy is actually concerned with all of the above mentioned questions, including the "why" question.
I can't think of a single "branch" myself that wouldn't be interested in the "what" question that science answers; except for maybe ethics. Also I'm not sure these questions fully represent the level of responsible that philosophy has in relation to science. For example, it is within the scope of philosophy to decide what method is best for answering the "what" question. The scientific method is the result. But what question did philosophy answer here? All of these questions are inquiries into a single object; "what" is an apple?, "How" does an apple grow?, "where" do apples grow?. Philosophy would not just consider "Why apples?". It's scope is beyond the object itself but also in the methods of inquiry.

Mentat
#4
Dec2-03, 10:39 AM
P: 3,715
The difference between What Cause and What Purpose .

Interesting points, Fliption. As I had seen it, Science is another branch of Philosophy, which cooperates with the other branches. Mathematics and Logic are also "tools" as you describe, since they can be used by any of the branches, are are very essential in the modern formulations of many of these fields; however, I had believed (though I'm not so sure now) that these were just another example of branches of Philosophy working together to acheive greater knowledge.
Yahweh
#5
Dec21-03, 08:20 AM
P: 86
Originally posted by Mentat
The aim of Philosophy is to pursue knowledge, understanding, and wisdom (usually in that order). There are many branches of Philosophy, and each branch has it's own limitations, which are not usually limitations of the whole of Philosophy, but merely of that one branch.

Science is a branch of Philosophy, and as such must also have its own limitations that are not shared by the whole pursuit of Philosophy. One of these limitations, I think, is that Science cannot answer "why" questions.

Science is very good at answering "what", "where", "when", "which", "how", and many other kinds of questions, but it always fails at "why" questions, because it's not designed to deal with them.

The reason I say it's not designed to deal with them is because it is entirely based on Inductive Logic (that which happened in case A, B, C, and D will happen in case E). The Scientific Method requires that a certain experiment be repeatable, in order for it to "prove" an hypothesis, but this (again) is induction. Now, Inductive Logic is based on the idea of Causality. If there were no cause-and-effect then there could be no assumption that case A, B, C, and D were in any way related, so as to assume that case E (which occurs under exactly the same circumstances as the previous cases) will have anything like those results.

Now, the reason that the title of the thread is "The difference between 'what cause' and 'what purpose'" is because there are indeed "why" questions that can be answered by Science, but these take on a different form then the kind that I was referring to by previous mention of "'why' questions". You see, "what cause" questions can be phrased as "why" questions (though they can also be phrased otherwise, and so Science never really has to answer a question in the "why" format), but Science is still equipped to answer them. For example, if I ask, "why does the Earth revolve around the Sun", Science can answer "because inertia is keeping the Earth moving, while gravity keeps it from leaving the Sun" (Note: This answer can be re-phrased as "this effect is caused by the combined effects of inertia and gravity").

However, the "why" question of the form "what purpose" cannot be re-phrased, and can also not be answered by Science. As an example, after my having answered that inertia and gravity keep the Earth in orbit around the Sun, one could as "Why does gravity exist?". This is a "what purpose" question, and is meaningless in Science. The scientist would probably answer "it just works that way" or "that's just the way it is", since anything further explanation of their purpose would require something outside of the Inductive system(be it belief, faith, credulity, or whatever else).

In summary: Science, due to its Inductive nature, is bound to Causality, and thus cannot be used to answer "why" questions of the form, "what purpose". Science can answer "why" questions of the form, "what cause", but these can always be re-phrased into something other than "what purpose" (i.e. "Why does the Earth revolve around the Sun?" = "What causes the Earth to revolve around the Sun?" or even "How does the Earth stay in orbit around the Sun?").
In terms of "why" questions, let us turn to Richard Dawkins and his book "River Out of Eden".

From P. 96-98:
We humans have a purpose on the brain. Wee find it hard to look at anything without wondering what it is "for," what the motive for it is, or the purpose behind it. When the obsession with purpose becomes pathological it is called paranoia -- reading malevolent purppose into what is actually random bad luck. But this is just an exagerrated forum of a nearly universal delusion. Show us almost any object or process, and it is hard for us to resist the "Why" question -- the "What is it for?" question.

The desire to see purpose everywhere is a natural one in an animal that lives surrounded by machines, works of art, tools and other designed artifacts; an animal, moreover, whose waking thoughts are dominated by its own personal goals. A car, a tin opener, a screwdriver and a pitchfork all legitimately warrant the "What is it for?" question. Our pagan forebears would have asked the same question about pagan forebears about thunder, eclipses, rocks and streams. Today we pride ourselves on having shaken off such a primitve animism. If a rock in a stream happens to serve as a convenient stepping-stone, we regard its usefulness as an accidental bonus, not a true purpose. But the old temptation comes back with a vengeance when tragedy strikes -- indeed, the very word "strikes" is an animistic echo: "Why, oh why, did the cancer/earthquake/hurricane have to strike my child?" And the same temptation is the origin of all things or the fundamental laws of physics culminating in the cauous existential question "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

I have lost count of the number of times a member of the audience has stood up after a public lecture I have given and said something like the following: "You scientists are very good at answering 'How' questions. But you must admit you're powerless when it comes to 'Why' questions." Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, made this very point when he was in an audience at Windsor addressed by my colleague Dr. Peter Atkins. Behind the question there is an unspoken but never justified impolication that since science is unable to answer "Why" questions, there must be some other discipline that is qualified to answer them. This implication is, of course, quite illogical.

I'm afraid that Dr. Atkins gave the Royal Why fairly short shrift. The mere fact that is is possible to frame a question does not make it legitimate or sensible to do so. There are many things about which you can ask, "What is the temperature?" or "What color is it?" but you may not ask what the color of, say, jealousy or prayer. Similarly, you are right to ask the "Why" question of a bicycle's mudguards or the Kariba Dam, but at the very least you have not right to assume that the "Why" question deserve an answer when posed about a boulder, a misfortune, Mr. Everest or the universe. Questions can simply be inappropriate, however heartfelt their framing.
(I have underlined some text, its a few of the more important passages.)

That is only a small portion of the significance of the "why" question. I think it can all be boiled down to this:
Do make sure your "why" question appropriate to ask.

I suggest you read anything by Richard Dawkins, you'll be glad you did.
Sikz
#6
Dec22-03, 01:17 AM
P: 235
Reason
Cause Purpose

Heh. A reason is either a cause or a purpose. "Why does this happen?" can be rephrased as "For what reason does this happen?". Cause deals with the past "This happens because it was CAUSED by this." Purpose deals with the future... Purpose always deals with the future. "What is the purpose of life?" really means "What does life cause?". Cause is what event caused the current event (what event's purpose was the current event). Purpose is what event will the current event cause (what is the purpose of the current event).

Meaning is a little harder to define. Its definition depends on our definition of Value. If things are always valuable for their effects (purposes), then meaning is simply another word for purpose. If there is something that is valuable for itself (and other things are valuable for the purpose of achieving the truly valuable thing), meaning is the total value of an event/thing in terms of the event/thing that is valuable in itself.
Mentat
#7
Jan2-04, 09:59 AM
P: 3,715
Originally posted by Yahweh
That is only a small portion of the significance of the "why" question. I think it can all be boiled down to this:
Do make sure your "why" question appropriate to ask.
Stephen Jay Gould made a similar statement once, in an interview. He said that such questions as "what is the purpose of life?" (which is, btw, another way of asking "why am I alive?") are "unanswerable questions" that waste peoples' time, since the end-answer is invariably a reflection of the asking one's personal biases or preferences.
pelastration
#8
Jan3-04, 01:24 PM
pelastration's Avatar
P: 515
Originally posted by Yahweh In terms of "why" questions, let us turn to Richard Dawkins and his book "River Out of Eden".
From P. 96-98:

quote: We humans have a purpose on the brain. We find it hard to look at anything without wondering what it is "for," what the motive for it is, or the purpose behind it. When the obsession with purpose becomes pathological it is called paranoia -- reading malevolent purppose into what is actually random bad luck. But this is just an exagerrated forum of a nearly universal delusion. Show us almost any object or process, and it is hard for us to resist the "Why" question -- the "What is it for?" question.

The desire to see purpose everywhere is a natural one in an animal that lives surrounded by machines, works of art, tools and other designed artifacts; an animal, moreover, whose waking thoughts are dominated by its own personal goals. A car, a tin opener, a screwdriver and a pitchfork all legitimately warrant the "What is it for?" question.(I have underlined some text, its a few of the more important passages.)(end quote)
Isn't that simplistic?
Maybe the essential (priority) questions are a valorization of:
(1) Is 'THIS' a danger?
(2) Is 'THIS' useful for my procreation?
(3) Is 'THIS' food related?
Why-questions are the result of secondary observations in a secure surrounding. But essentially a screwdriver in the hands of an enemy can kill you (strong level 1) or can hurt you (weak level 1). Even in a 'save' (why) surrounding you will always know that a mal-use of the screwdriver can hurt you.
hypnagogue
#9
Jan3-04, 08:13 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,265
Is the theory of sexual selection to be considered a scientific theory?

Q: Why (for what purpose) is a peacock colored so brightly?
A: In order to attract mates.
pelastration
#10
Jan4-04, 04:09 AM
pelastration's Avatar
P: 515
Originally posted by hypnagogue
Is the theory of sexual selection to be considered a scientific theory?

Q: Why (for what purpose) is a peacock colored so brightly?
A: In order to attract mates.
Was the discovery of pheromones a scientific fact that influences and changed the theories about the sexual selection? Yes.

Maybe a better question would be:
Q: How (by what systems) mates attract others?
A:
(1) By the productions of pheromones.
(2) By outside (genetic-based) visual properties/signs such as colors (your peacock colors), size, harmonic shapes, etc. from which certain can be adapted (cf. chameleon)
(3) By expression or behavior such as gesture, attitude, moves, sounds ...
(4) By other (hormone) based systems
(5) ...

IMO 'How' is stronger than 'Why'. Why is on the level of Trivial Pursuit. 'How' covers all mechanism involved. But hypnagogue, this interpretation may be due to my Dutch language in which 'how' is stronger.
pelastration
#11
Jan4-04, 04:29 AM
pelastration's Avatar
P: 515
Originally posted by Mentat
In summary: Science, due to its Inductive nature, is bound to Causality, and thus cannot be used to answer "why" questions of the form, "what purpose". Science can answer "why" questions of the form, "what cause", but these can always be re-phrased into something other than "what purpose" (i.e. "Why does the Earth revolve around the Sun?" = "What causes the Earth to revolve around the Sun?" or even "How does the Earth stay in orbit around the Sun?").
Mentat,
The why-questions are more related to 'existential' questions. This is called in psychology 'rationalizations', how people tends to look for a reason behind events. If there is no explanation they will create one.
But when we answer a why-question it starts almost always with: "Be-CAUSE" ....
hypnagogue
#12
Jan4-04, 03:41 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,265
My intent was just to show that science does indeed endeavour to answer at least some "why" ("for what purpose") questions, specifically in the field of evolution. In evolutionary theory, any biological adaptation can be seen as serving the purpose of propogating genes.
selfAdjoint
#13
Jan4-04, 06:53 PM
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 8,147
Since I just asserted on another thread that science does not answer, or ask, why questions, I suppose I am bound to reply to you here.

The theory of evolution does not answer or ask a why question, but a how question (quomodo). How does complexity arise without prior design? As all of the active researchers in the area have always maintained, it does not at all address any question of why complexity should arise, what good it would serve, et cetera. These are non scientific questions.

In evolutionary theory, any biological adaptation can be seen as serving the purpose of propogating genes.
No, it just has the result of propagating genes. Neither the genes nor the mechanism of variation and selection has any more purpose than water running down hill.
pelastration
#14
Jan4-04, 07:10 PM
pelastration's Avatar
P: 515
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
No, it just has the result of propagating genes. Neither the genes nor the mechanism of variation and selection has any more purpose than water running down hill.
Good point. But we still can ask if genes change for a certain reason, such as as a serious change in essential surrounding systems which may contain a danger for survival.
The How-question would be: How is it noticed?
hypnagogue
#15
Jan4-04, 11:01 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,265
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Since I just asserted on another thread that science does not answer, or ask, why questions, I suppose I am bound to reply to you here.

The theory of evolution does not answer or ask a why question, but a how question (quomodo). How does complexity arise without prior design? As all of the active researchers in the area have always maintained, it does not at all address any question of why complexity should arise, what good it would serve, et cetera. These are non scientific questions.

No, it just has the result of propagating genes. Neither the genes nor the mechanism of variation and selection has any more purpose than water running down hill.
I see what you are saying, but I think there is a distinction that might yet be made. A purpose can be seen as a goal toward which a process is directed. A dictionary synonym of purpose is intention, which can be defined as "An aim that guides action; an objective"; note that this definition does not require purpose / intention to be a consciously motivated process.

Accordingly, propogating genes is the purpose of biological adaptations insofar as propogation of genes is an 'aim' or 'goal state' that guides the evolution of biological features through selective pressures; there is a certain directivity in the process towards a certain end.

I do not think there is an analogous 'directivity' for water running downhill, although one might object that there is a sense in which running water is simply 'guided' by the 'aim' to satisfy the laws of physics. However, water running has the flavor of an absolute necessity as dictated by the laws of physics, whereas evolution has the flavor of a conditional search for optimal solutions to a given problem.

In this way, there is a sense in which the guidance of adaptation via selective pressures can succeed or fail to satisfy the goal state of gene propogation-- achieving the goal state is not assured by lawlike necessity. There is no analogous goal state in light of which the guidance of running water via the laws of physics can be seen to succeed in spite of the possibility of failure, or at least I can't think of one. Thus there seems to be a subtle distinction in the 'guidance' occuring in each case, and thus grounds for a claim that one process has 'directivity' in a sense in which the other does not.
selfAdjoint
#16
Jan5-04, 08:35 AM
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 8,147
I just can't buy this. I think is misrepresents the whole idea of evolution, and I don't see that it's necessary at all. Genetic combination happens. Then the phenotypes experience nature. Time and chance happen. Subsequently the distribution of genes in later populations is different from what it was before. That's all that that happens, purpose is not required.

Going to the dictionary and finding a definition to your purpose happens not in the world where things evolve but in your mental world where you think about things. I believe you are projecting your own sense of purpose on a purposeless process.
Mentat
#17
Jan5-04, 12:55 PM
P: 3,715
Originally posted by hypnagogue
Is the theory of sexual selection to be considered a scientific theory?

Q: Why (for what purpose) is a peacock colored so brightly?
A: In order to attract mates.
This is not correct. There is no scientific purpose for the peacock to have been colored brightly. However, there is a cause. If you rephrase the question as "What causes a peacock to be brightly colored?", then the answer is a greater probability of attracting a mate that has thus continually propogated the "colorful feathers" gene throughout his ancestry.
hypnagogue
#18
Jan5-04, 02:35 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,265
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
I just can't buy this. I think is misrepresents the whole idea of evolution, and I don't see that it's necessary at all. Genetic combination happens. Then the phenotypes experience nature. Time and chance happen. Subsequently the distribution of genes in later populations is different from what it was before. That's all that that happens, purpose is not required.

Going to the dictionary and finding a definition to your purpose happens not in the world where things evolve but in your mental world where you think about things. I believe you are projecting your own sense of purpose on a purposeless process.
I meant purpose in this context just to be the end towards which a process is directed. Obviously there is a semantic difficulty here-- purpose is usually associated with a conscious mental objective. But if we allow the use of purpose as I have been using it, I believe my argument holds-- unless you are saying that propogation of genes is not an end towards which biological mutations/adaptations are naturally directed.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Difference between Identical , Equal , Equivalent Calculus & Beyond Homework 9
Difference between Traction and Tractive Force ? General Physics 2
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep vs Blade Runner General Discussion 0