“Why”, when distinguished from “how”, is asking about the intent of a thinking agent. Neuroscience, psychology, and sociology exist. Am I misunderstanding your point?
Comment on What are the strengths of the scientific method? What are its weaknesses?
onion@feddit.de 8 months agoAlso never touching any why-questions
humorlessrepost@lemmy.world 8 months ago
gregorum@lemm.ee 8 months ago
I don’t think this is true. “Why” questions merely need to be translated from the abstract to the tangible in order to be tested.
Perhaps you meant the philosophical and/or metaphysical?
protist@mander.xyz 8 months ago
Why?
Beldarofremulak@lemmy.world 8 months ago
We got some 101’s in here beanbag chairin it up.
protist@mander.xyz 8 months ago
Speak for yourself, I’m having this conversation from a papasan chair I found on the side of the road
dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Because without facts, what you have is not “truth.” It’s either speculation or bullshit.
protist@mander.xyz 8 months ago
But how do you define “facts?” And how do you define “truth?” And how do you define “is?”
asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I think the point is this is paradoxical. Everything must be proven by facts and we cannot trust any general, abstract statement of its own accord, then how can we prove “everything must be proven by facts and we cannot trust any general, abstract statement of its own accord”? What if that’s a wrong assumption?
Maybe the truth is we don’t always need to rely on observable facts, but we don’t know that because we’re making the aforementioned assumption without having any proof that it’s correct.
Dr_Satan@lemm.ee 8 months ago
To get a fact out of an observation requires interpretation and a desire-to-interpret. It’s observation translated into dream.