Why dont scientists ask why(q)

totorofriday@hotmail.com (totoro) wrote in message news:<cad706e9.0302100138.51ef43d3@posting.google.com>... > My dad who is a social engineer (socialist?)says the 'why' question > doesn't belong in science. I ask him why and he gets mad. When > scientists have a theory, before anything, dont they want to know why > something is the way it is? I think its disingenous to say scientists > ask 'how', and philosophers ask 'why' - and historians write about it, > hey :) > I really depends on where you put the 'how' and the 'why'.

Science is based on a system of posulate, that do not have mathematical proofs. However, based on empirical observation, are taken for granted.

For example, within SR, you may not ask why the speed of light is constant in every frame of reference. This is an underlying posulate of SR.

However, taking this granted, you may be abe to explain 'why' travellers, moving close to light speed, will have their time slowed down.

In Newtonian physics, you have to take m dv/dt = - d/dx V(x) for granted. You cannot go anywhere by asking why this is true, within Netwonian framework. You could conduct experiments and show this to be consistant, however, you may not be to able to derive it. However, from the schrodinger's equation or hisenberg mechanics, you will be able to derive m d<v> /dt = - < d/dx V(x) >

I once got into debate witht this person, who got upset because i said if you read David Griffits book, you will be able to understand Quantum Mechanics.

He even quoted feyman saying 'nobody understands quantum mechanics.' It's was interesting one of 2 ways. Feyman himself won the Noble Prize in Physics, for QED. So, if he did not understand QM, did he get a noble prize for plug and chugging? And feyman himself wrote many books on QM.

So, it is important to put feyman statement into context. I really think he meant to say, 'nobody understands why quantum mechanics is the way it is.' However, his many books are on 'understanding how quantum mechanics the way it is'.

Secondly, it is important to distinguish between 'rationale for things the way they are' and 'reasons for things the way they are.'

Philosophers and Religions usually, indluge themselves over rationale for things, not necessalirily reason for things.

Physics, and other sciences are more bent on reason for things. Their reason for things have to agree with experiment, which something philsophers rarely do.

-suresh > Uncle All, please dont answer this because you really scare me.