At the core of many professions is understanding basic principles of our environment. In journalism, a cardinal rule of coverage is contained within five “W”s and an additional “H”. These represent: Who? What? Where? When? Why? and How? When determining if an article’s representation is complete, these questions should be addressed. The same basic outline can be applied to other disciplines that have evolved from the simple, maddening question… why?
During child development, one of the most difficult periods for parents is when the natural inclination of children is to question almost everything. An initial question of why? is typically answered by parent, sibling or adult and followed by another simple query… why? When exhausted by the apparent never-ending response, many end the conversation with the phrase… “because I said so!”
The depth of observation and introspection by inquisitive minds is unsettling when ultimately, the answer is actually, “I don’t know.” However, as we mature, lessons of observation, experience and training begin to shape our perception of repeatable results that appear to continuously correlate with a set of circumstances, so we call them “facts.” Multiple disciplines study such phenomena and are collectively referred to as “science.”
Unsettling as well is the realization that basic facts can be fluid and altered with additional study and information. Therefore, what is known today may be altered, discarded or otherwise modified tomorrow. For instance, our solar system included nine planets years ago, but has now been modified to eight… poor Pluto lost its status as a planet! On the other end of the scale, the atom, at one time thought to be the smallest unit of matter, has been dissected and replaced by a host of particles – seen or unseen – that are much smaller and more complex.
As science progresses, the ultimate, existential question of “why” remains. Within the observable dimensions of humans, a vast and complex arena of thoughts and actions are, in many ways, as mysterious today as ever. Although social sciences attempt to study, catalogue and even predict the actions and machinations of our fellow life travelers, the unique nature of each individual often precludes strict interpretations and exclusive laws of behavior. When physical, life and social sciences collide, a reasoned approach of the scientific method – clearly stating an objective and collecting facts to arrive at a reasonable conclusion – are impeded by the prevalence of illogical and emotional factors, sometimes resulting in a more palatable outcome, but equally capable of disastrous consequences.
Influential factors are critical during the process of shaping an outcome. If an agreeable and desired outcome is an overriding consideration, the process is predetermined and risks a conclusion without merit. On the other hand, there are many instances when questions demanding concrete answers, based solely on facts, elude even the most dedicated and learned scientists. The struggle with “why” is unresolved. This doesn’t mean that pursuit of it in a logical manner is without merit, rather that admission of unknown and unanswered questions is part of life and continues the progress and transformation of our societies into better versions of themselves.
In politics, too often the concept of values, facts and conclusions are relegated to emotional and specious speculation. These methods have been tested over time and, unfortunately, can work exceedingly well, even when confronted by contradictions and factual rebuttal. However, this tact depends on a unified effort at all levels of government and frays if the ultimate question is posed. If a persistent why leads to obfuscation, deception and anger, the answer is obvious. The best place to test the veracity and sense of decisions is at the local level where there is little room for politicians to hide. It all begins with a simple question.
Never stop asking “why?”