just a thought, do we give science too much credit?

[robyn hill]

I understand that science can answer "how" things are created but not "why" This leads me to belive that in a sense, science is puting together the pieces but gets credit for deciding the purpose too soon .Science is great at taking things apart and figuring out how they fit back together but that is often as worthy as it gets. Let me illustrate my point.

Suppose there were a convention in the days before electricity and many scientists showed up. There, in the corner, is a lightbulb, but no inventor around and because electicity hasn't been yet shown to the world, no one knows the purpose. The scientists gather around and begin doing their magic. Well, they say, this is how it works, the wires connect to the metal and the glass keeps it all together. A person in the audience says "Yeah, but what's it for?" and the scientists say, we aren't here to discuss philosophical questions, but we can tell you exactly how it is made up. And we can tell you where the materials came from. They then begin to hypothesise what the bulb could be used for. When the inventor doesn't show up, the scientists conclude that the bulb is an invention perhaps to use as a paper weight. Since no inventor is to be found, the audience, and then the society ,accept that as its purpose because that is as far as discovery can go since electricity hasn't been invented and no inventor is to be found.
If the inventor isn't there, then scientists can only provide theories as to how the creation is made and guess on its purpose. This is fine except that science seems to claim the copyright to their theories even though clearly they aren't the creator or who put together these massive systems. God has made himself known, but to those who don't see him as the creator- questions as to why the world works, and its purposes, can only be hypotheses. Maybe, since science isn't the creator, they miss the purpose all together? Who's to say? Suppose in the hypothetical situation above, the invention's purpose was to give light all along and the inventor never did get the credit.

[EASports]

Often in science questions of "how" and "why" are indistinguishable. You could ask why a ball will fall towards the ground when dropped. Well, the answer is that the ball falls because two objects with mass experience an attractive force between them. You could continue to ask why this mass and force business is true, but that is a separate question. The answer to why the ball falls has been provided. If you then ask how the ball falls, you'll get a similar, if not identical answer: The nature of the ball's fall is in accordance with the law of gravitational attraction, or more generally, the laws of general relativity.

This is of course a simple example, but it illustrates how sometimes questions of "how" and "why" are hard to distinguish.

[CliffsofBurton]

Firstly, I would like to say, I enjoyed reading your question.

I think, that if you really thought about it, you would have come up with this answer.

Let us assume that an inventor has come up with a marvelous invention. This device, seeming to be nothing more than a steel box with a hole in the top. Now, lets say, for the sake of arguement, (I think all "Forums" everywhere should just be labeled "Arguements") that when something, nigh, ANYTHING is put in the hole, it produces a, oh, I don't know, an amount of water. That's all good and fine for things we know contain water. But what about things that contain very little water, like a rock, or a marble, that would contain an immeasurably small amount of water. This machine however, makes it seem that if i dropped in enough marbles to fill a glass, that water produced would fill a glass.

Now you, might be willing to take this at face value, chalking it up to "miracles" or "God's will." A scientist could not abide that explanation. What I mean is, most of us have been curious about something at some point in our lives. That's all science is. We want to know how things work, how they came to be, and what our role is. A scientist would do his best to uncover how this amazing machine is producing clear, drinkable water.

Another area of your question that I wanted to address is the part where you stated that it seems like scientists are "taking credit" or "putting their copyright on an idea."

Let me make this very easy for you. Sir Isaac Newton NEVER would have claimed that he OWNED, INVENTED, or even DISCOVERED gravity. He just told us what it is, and did his best to explain it in a way we could understand.

If anything here has already been touched on, I apologize. I only read the question.