xkcd

by **Brandon Oto** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:28 pm UTC

Anyone ever played anything like this? I used to mess around with it in middle school; it rarely got too deep, but it's amusing, and at high enough levels it can be a nice tool for finding holes in your general scientific knowledge (and, depending on the direction you take it, can dig into math, philosophy, language, sociology, etc. etc.).

Basically: one person opens with a factual statement. His antagonist parses it, adjudges it accurate/fair (or not), then immediately asks, "why?"

You have to explain why it is true. Usually this means drilling into causal scientific theory, giving a concise explanation for the phenomenon that has created this event.

You get back, "why?"

Repeat.

The game is over when you have no explanation; your explanation is gibberish or extremely poor; or, most often, your explanation consists of "Because" or "God made it so." If you're good, this occurs when you reach the boundaries of human knowledge.

Anyone up for a game?

by **ikerous** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:31 pm UTC

by **Prole** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:41 pm UTC

ikerous wrote:Why?

touché

by **Brandon Oto** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:47 pm UTC

ikerous wrote:Why?

Because I'm bored.

by **EdgarJPublius** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:06 pm UTC

Brandon Oto wrote:
ikerous wrote:Why?

Because I'm bored.

why?

by **ikerous** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:11 pm UTC

Because he doesn't have anything else to do.

by **antonfire** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:54 pm UTC

by **Brandon Oto** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:55 pm UTC

Because the number of tasks in my conscious "arsenal", with their associated time-costs required, is too small to fill the time currently available in my life.

by **Ended** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:04 pm UTC

When?

...er, I mean, Why?

by **Brandon Oto** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:11 pm UTC

Because the day has 24 hours.

(I'm going to bed, someone else can explain this one. You'll probably need to figure out why it's 24 for a complete answer, which I don't even know.)

by **Beyondthewall** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:21 pm UTC

Edit two: bugger that then.

"Why?"

Edit: Err, wrote an answer without anyone asking "why". Can we just forgo the "why" post?

Because the length of the hour was determined by the length of the day.
(Joy for sidestepping the question.)

by **Mathmagic** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:42 pm UTC

Beyondthewall wrote:Edit: Err, wrote an answer without anyone asking "why". Can we just forgo the "why" post?

No you may not. :razz:

by **Kerberos** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:50 pm UTC

mathmagic wrote:No you may not.

Why?

by **4=5** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:45 am UTC

because that would break the fun of the game

by **Beyondthewall** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:55 am UTC

by **orangeperson** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 2:35 am UTC

Because the game derives much of its fun from its rhythm, alternating "why?" with an explanation.

off topic: I lose.

by **Mathmagic** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 2:38 am UTC

NEW CLAIM

What goes up must come down.

by **Gelsamel** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:10 am UTC

Why...

the fuck is this in science?

by **Macbi** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:02 am UTC

Because of the nature of science, it's good at explaining stuff.

by **cerberus** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:42 am UTC

by **Brandon Oto** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:35 am UTC

It is felt that an evidence-based system which can be tested and falsified suggests more useful models than any other method.

by **Hit3k** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:56 am UTC

yeah but.... why?

by **lucaswschmidt** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:31 pm UTC

people felt increasingly dissatisfied with the answers that religion was providing them and therefore turned to other sources. unfortunately jesus only wants your love, not your questions.

by **pr1mu5** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:44 pm UTC

lucaswschmidt wrote:people felt increasingly dissatisfied with the answers that religion was providing them and therefore turned to other sources.

Why?

by **Beyondthewall** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:50 pm UTC

Science continued, and still does continue, to remove the necessity of a god or gods, at least in the minds of the people, by providing alternate explanations that can actually be applied.

by **Brandon Oto** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 2:10 pm UTC

Why?

(circle as long as you want, eventually someone's going to have to epistemologically justify the scientific method

)

by **Mathmagic** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 2:19 pm UTC

Because people are afraid to believe in something they can't see, feel, or touch; just physically interact with. Empirical evidence and experimenting gives a feeling of accomplishment and satisfication to those who *need* to see something to believe in something.

by **pr1mu5** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 2:50 pm UTC

by **Mathmagic** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:00 pm UTC

Human beings are fragile creatures; they need to be in control. By *not* putting your beliefs in a higher being that ultimately is the cause of everything around you, you maintain the feelings of causality, human ingenuity, and effectively, the illusion that human beings and/or "nature" have more influence on the world around us than should be given credit for.

by **pr1mu5** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:55 pm UTC

mathmagic wrote:Human beings are fragile creatures; they need to be in control.

Why?

by **Mathmagic** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:51 pm UTC

pr1mu5 wrote:
mathmagic wrote:Human beings are fragile creatures; they need to be in control.

Why?

There are so few things in life that we can manipulate and/or control to begin with. Events like death, suffering, or phenomenae are often unexplainable at first glance, but given enough time and sufficient materials (both physical and psychological), humans will come up with some way to "take charge". Cheating death and defying gravity (Gee Willikers LOOK AT TEH MAGNETS!) keeps us from killing ourselves and others out of frustration, depression, or lack of knowledge. By discovering scientific laws and methods, we uncover the delicate fabric that is our universe just a little bit more; but rather than giving the credit of these uncannily interwoven and relatively simple laws to a Creator, we applaud ourselves for our ingenuity. It is human nature to search for more answers and more knowledge, but it is also human nature to want control over this new knowledge.

by **Brandon Oto** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:59 pm UTC

There are so few things in life that we can manipulate and/or control to begin with.

Why?

by **Rey** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:21 pm UTC

Brandon Oto wrote:
There are so few things in life that we can manipulate and/or control to begin with.

Why?

We live in a near infinite universe yet suffer from an finite mental capacity.

by **Brandon Oto** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:23 pm UTC

Rey wrote:We . . . suffer from an finite mental capacity.

Why?

(nyah nyah, you don't get the cosmology branch)

by **Macbi** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:04 pm UTC

Because our mental capability is tied to our amount of neurons, which is fiiinite.

by **Brandon Oto** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:06 pm UTC

Macbi wrote:. . . our amount of neurons, which is fiiinite.

by **Macbi** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:10 pm UTC

Surely you've missed something there?
Unless you're just pointing out typos.

by **Brandon Oto** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:41 pm UTC

Ahem... WHY?

by **Macbi** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:50 pm UTC

Let a be the volume of a neuron, and b be the volume of a human brain.
Since both a and b are finite the number of neurons (b/a) is finite.

by **Master Gunner** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:06 pm UTC

Macbi wrote:Let a be the volume of a neuron, and b be the volume of a human brain.

why?

Who is online