... the actual cause remains an unknown.
False. The cause has become known. Just because it wasn't the currently accepted scientific cause does not mean it wasn't
a cause. Their cause may have been wrong, so may ours be wrong. A cause is a cause; it's known if it's known.
The real difference (and the difference between the above "supernatural" explanations and dark matter) is that some of these answers are real answers with explanatory and predictive power...
Who says a 'real' answer must have these features?
others are just mysterious answers to mysterious questions and stop curiosity in the intellectually lazy without actually increasing understanding.
Everything stops curiosity in the intellectual lazyas would the 'real' answers you discuss. Fortunately, though, not everyone is intellectually lazy, and the 'mysterious answers to mysterious questions' often implant great degrees of curiosity in such folk. In fact, answers that
more thoroughly answer the question stop more curiosity than the
less thorough answers which are inevitable prompts for additional 'whys'.
A mysterious answer is one that does not increase our understanding of the question it attempts to answer, and instead often utilizes vague, poorly defined (if defined at all) terms as a sort of password to stop further investigation and shut down curiosity.
Well, since you've chosen to define a 'mysterious answer' as one that is meant 'to stop further investigation and shut down curiosity', then I guess it would be true that, given this definition, all 'mysterious answers' will stop curiosity. But now, can you provide some examples of answers that would fit this definition of 'mysterious'?
Our greatest weakness with regard to rational thought is not that we posses the capacity (and willingness) to make up stories to fill in those unknowns, but rather in our ability to feel satisfied with those stories to the point that we stop investigating mysterious phenomenon even when we still don't have a real explanation.
I think you'll find this false. Ever heard of a kid who was satisfied with an answer? It is human nature to continue questioning; it takes a life of brainwashing to beat that out of folk.
But the answer was mysterious. What is phlogiston, other than "that which burns?" What makes it burn? Why does phlogiston not always burn, even without a match or spark or friction to start the fire? What is combustion? Phlogiston theory was nothing more than a password for "the stuff that burns" that emotionally satisfied curiosity.
Of course, as you point out, there is no satisfying of curiosity with this hypothesis; you yourself have listed a load of questions that can be asked even if we accept the phlogiston argument.
Predictive power is the key to any real answer.
Why? What kinds of predictions? Lots of good answers offer nothing in the way of 'predictive power'.
"Where's the Lasagna?"
"Aisle ten, ma'am."
"Well shit, you dope-faced little punk; that ain't no real answer... I can't predict
nothing outa that!"
Seriously, though, why should an answer have to allow one to make predictions to be regarded as real?
If your explanation of a mysterious phenomenon does not allow you to, in advance, make a prediction about the outcome of an experiment regarding that phenomenon that then proves to be accurate, then you don't really have an explanation at all - you have a mysterious answer.
Again, why?
In everyday life, mysterious answers are relatively harmless. Most people don't really know how a computer works - and if they ask, a simple answer like "there's a processor inside that uses programs to turn all the ones and zeroes into something you and I can understand and use"
That's a perfectly fine answer, providing the inquirer with more information than they had before, and certainly provides ample material for a
curios mind to explore further. There's absolutely nothing 'mysterious' about it.
But we need to recognize when our answers are mysterious, because confusing a mysterious answer for an actual explanation is dangerous. Mysterious answers are much more likely to be flat-out wrong (rather than just inaccurate and vague)
But the answer in your computer example was just that: slightly inaccurate and vague. Far from 'mysterious' and far from being a curiosity stopper.
If your answer for a mysterious phenomenon relies exclusively on "evidence" that is not entangled with the real world ("feelings," for example), your answer is mysterious, and is no better than a random guess.
Your computer example, of course, does not meet any of these criteria; I'm still not seeing why it is 'mysterious'.
Only by including the mechanism by which the proposed deity provides guidance to the well-known evolutionary process would the answer cease to be mysterious and be sufficient to satisfy curiosity. Claiming that the Flood caused the Grand Canyon does not in any way show how a Flood would ever cause any such formation, much like saying that flammable objects burn because they have phlogiston doesn't actually show why phlogiston is a reasonable answer.
I cannot figure out how this ties in with anything else you've said.
an artificial satisfaction of curiosity
What does this mean?
Are all of these beliefs held because of an emotional preference, an artificial satisfaction of curiosity because a useless but preferred answer tends to be believed over a useful but less preferred one? It's the best answer I can come up with...but what about everyone else?
Beliefs are held for a lot of reasons; but nothing in this question has anything to do with the rest of your post.
Jon
Check out Apollo's Temple!
™ Version 4.2
