That’s might be an option too, I guess, but in some situations it’s a different question. If I make a mistake and you ask “how”, you might just get more details. If you ask “why” I might respond with “I was tired”, which doesn’t really imply teleology. As I understand it почему would be more specific to cause rather than just means, but then again my Russian is pretty basic. The word “how” would be как, and it even works as an intensifier the same way.
A few fields are a bit like that. I remember my chemistry teacher in high school saying something similar.
As mostly a math person, it kind of bugs me. There definitely is one set of rules that a field obeys, and while it’s usually necessary to simplify I’d really like to know how not to. Sure, water is mostly incompressible, but it’s not exactly so, and that’s how sound works and can translate to other mediums. And then once you get down to small scales, high energies or low pressures you start seeing the individual water molecules being relevant and doing all kinds of different things. Those factors were always there, even if they weren’t relevant.
Sorry, maybe that’s a bit of a rant, but all that to say I’m sure you can find a consensus on these questions eventually.
Well, you would know a lot better. And thanks for the reading recommendation.
What are your thoughts on viruses as a form of life? Asking what natural selection is in exact terms is pretty closely related to asking what life is, since life is probably some subset of things that can do natural selection.
Hmm. I’m going to have to look up how you model glass bending, if that’s how it works. I wonder if you could do this in a garage setting, even. I’m not surprised a calcium mineral is less resistant to it, they seen less hardcore in general or something.
Ah, so you haven’t heard about this thing. It’s not really lucky 10,000 territory, but it’s still cool.
There are situations, where in sexually reproducing organisms, an unambiguously bad gene can spread through the population, just by ensuring it’s more likely to appear in the next generation. As long as it’s not so bad it kills the species off, you’re still likely to observe it a lot in a future population. We’ve actually harnessed this idea technologically, with genetically modified mosquitoes that crash their local population by skewing all offspring malewards.
Depends how you’re using “why”. In Russian, they actually have two words for why, one of which implies teleology, and one which doesn’t, and merely requests some explanation for a phenomenon. I wish we had that in English.
In this case, it’s such a general question you can’t do much better, but you could, for example, talk about why oxygen-carrying proteins pretty much always incorporate an ion of something, in a merely cause-and-effect way. (And I actually don’t know the answer to that one)
Well, genes, if we want to get really technical. Otherwise you can find counterexamples where genes are detrimental to the organism, but manage to spread anyway do to some quirk.
Neat! That’s a very specific, chain-like example, though, so not really in the spirit of the question even if correct to the letter. I’m also not sure what it does in the actual plastic deformation regime.
Nope. The mantle is mostly solid. It’s just so huge and, under intense pressure and heat, bendy, that it still facilitates moving continents and ocean plates.
It also illustrates a funny bit of the logic of multicellular non-clonal creatures: the germ line is the species. The other 99.9…% of you is just a fancy delivery mechanism, so it makes sense to add something seemingly super impractical to the anatomy if it slightly helps the sex cells.