WHY?

I submit here a question on the validity of two questions; How and Why? These are two basic questions that at first glance seem somewhat self-explanatory. How is a question getting at the heart of the process? How does it work, is an almost completely literal inquisition about the process which causes or creates. Why it works is something, which begs that there is a reason for the process, or in a literal sense the rules that allow the process to occur. I think that these distinctions would be better shown with an example.

Why does it rain? A simple enough question, and answered simply it would go something like, “it rains because evaporation causes water to rise in the atmosphere and condense in clouds forming precipitation.” But is this really WHY it rains? This seems to me more of an answer of HOW rain works. I think that by making the question a little more specific may help. Why is there rain? This too seems to have an answer. The radiating forces acting upon the Earth cause heat, which in turn drive weather patters, thusly creating rain. But I would argue that this too is more of a “how does rain come to be?” then “Why is there rain?”. So, maybe as is the case with many things, the simplest answer is the correct. The “why” in “why is there rain?” is an answer to the question “how does it rain?” But if we remember, “why” also begs that there is a reason. Then the question looks like this, “What is the reason for rain?”. Then the answer to “Why does it rain?” could be, “The reason it rains is an end result to natural phenomenon.”

The phenomenon however, does not exist with it’s reason being to make rain. It simply exists. Condensation and evaporation occur regardless of the end result. But together as a process rain becomes inevitable, and therefore gives the process reason.