In the sense that all causation is over-simplification, I can agree with you. But in the sense that function is distinct from material (ends distinct from means), I disagree. In particular, when we consider things like therapeutic compounds, many different compounds can achieve the same (or similar) ends, some much less toxic or much cheaper than others. So questions of function are necessary, even if insufficient.
It reminds me of the "tech bros" who look down their noses at DIY electronics, but *love* well-engineered gadgets like iPhones, or fetishize the Tesla over the Leaf, etc. Both the concepts of "satisficing" and the 80/20 rule are largely about function/why and material/what take an important back seat. On 4/10/19 7:28 AM, Gary Schiltz wrote: > I'm not a big fan of "why" questions. I think "why" is just an excuse for not > wanting to admit that we don't know "what" in sufficient detail. To misquote > Yoda, "There is no Why. What, or what not.". -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
