Science

If I ask "Why is the sky blue?" is that the same question as "What sufficient conditions for the sky being blue are present in the universe?"?

Comments

I'm not entirely sure from your way of putting it exactly what's at issue. I think you're asking whether answering a "why" question is always a matter of providing a sufficient condition for whatever we're "why"ing about. If that's it, I'd say no. One reason is that when we ask a "why?" question, we're usually looking for something that gives us some insight, and not all sufficient conditions do that. For example: suppose we consider some isolated physical system that's governed by strict laws. And suppose the state of this system at some moment is S. We might ask "why is the state of the system S?" Saying "because 10 seconds ago, the state was S', and the laws of the system guarantee that S' will evolve into S over a 10-second period," then we've provided a sufficient codition, but we haven't given a good answer to the "Why?" question. If we're puzzled about why the state is S right now, we're likely to be just as puzzled by why it was S' 10 seconds ago.

So giving a sufficient condition may not provide a good answer to a "Why?" question. However, that leaves it open that giving a answering a "Why?" question always calls for some sufficient condition, even if there's more to it than that.

This isn't so either. One reason: it's sometimes enough to cite a condition that makes what happened likely. Why did Rhonda get the flu? Because she spent the whole weekend working with a bunch of kids who all had the flu. Most of us would be happy with that answer, even though it doesn't give a sufficient condition.

Needless to say, there's been alot of ink spilled on this issue. For now, suffice it to say that sufficiency won't suffice.

Read another response by Allen Stairs

Read another response about Science