Feb 04 2010
A Cognitive Conceit
I can’t remember where, but yesterday I encountered the old canard, “Science can only answer ‘how’ questions. The ‘why’ questions are beyond its scope.” Rather than being philosophically profound, that attitude reflects a cognitive conceit. Or maybe a cognitive “myopia.”
Consider the above photograph of the backside of a hibiscus blossom (backside to potential pollinators and those that don’t reside in the depths of the bush, as some insects do). Science can certainly better answer the question “How do we find it beautiful?” than it can “Why is it beautiful?” The reason? Subjectivity. In why questions we find lurking a subjective stance. How is it meaningful . . . to me, the subject. Because science strives for objectivity, it shuns such subjectivity. Yet it can answer the subjective question more accurately than can religion or art, etc., so long as the perspective is specified and not assumed to be absolute.
How? Once the subject of the “why” is specified, science can roll up its sleeves and determine the “how” that subject perceives the phenomenon as it does.
Back to the hibiscus blossom. Simply asking “Why is the blossom beautiful?” is an unscientific question. Unrefined. “Why is the blossom considered beautiful by humans?” or “Why is the blossom attractive to bees?” — now these are questions science can more readily go about answering.
True, science is not as good at answering the relatively vague “why” questions. But in this case, the problem is not with science, but with the question.
