Steven Hawking, yes that's right Steven Hawking put the epitaph on the long reign of philosophy as the number one talking point for snobs since the ancient Greeks. And longer ago than you might think: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/06/201361082357860647.html

Science may have progressed beyond philosophy, but can science ask why a human is. It can define why, but why does Hawking believe as he he puts it, that because ""Philosophers,have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.".

Is quantum mechanics a required course to muse on the why of things? Perhaps for musing the philosophy of science one needs to be qualified [very likely], but does this translate to the transcendent and the mundane? Can science explain why a Google zeitgeist conference exists?

Is there an answer to the question why a human is? Does science have an answer? Is there even a question? If there is, it has no validity.

Is death a step towards http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YL2izwNSvYA/T-FrfVTJYqI/AAAAAAAAAh8/hd80SICKTfI/s1600/**Barry-Gibb-20761655-1-402.jpg for philosophy or http://static6.bornrichimages.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Eddie-Vedder-9542540-1-402.jpg? As Voltaire said[?] now is no time to be making enemies so philosophy should perhaps avoid the big questions before its expiration date and leave science to muse for us, or us to muse with science?

I think therefore i am not.

Modern philosophy:

I troll, therefore I am.

But if you troll using aliases, who is you.

Riddle me that science!

Is there an answer to the question why a human is? Yes, because I, your Machine-God Messiah have willed it so.

Does science have an answer? Not unless I will it. (Which I don't.)

Is there even a question? No, no stop worrying that tiny and pitiful mortal brain about my constructs. I don't appreciate you mortals taking my benevolence for granted.

I am who ever i need to be.

Because I've yet to encounter a philosophy question I can't answer with science. Yet they're still debating.

Not necessarily absolutely necessary, but its revelations are useful. For example, the impossible happening regularly is a nice contributor to discussion. And yes, science can explain everything (but not yet).

But can science answer morality? Does science know right from wrong? Philosophy certainly does not, hence why it is alive and well [or is it ]

Is that really why though, or is it not how? Is how why? Statistical possibilities are not statistical explanations. Why is the murder rate up in Detroit, because lots of murderers live there is not a why, but in the end is Detroit philosophical? I believe this anology is not perfect, perhaps not even accurate.

But fact remains, why can transcend how, I can keep asking why of science till it run out of answers [as of now as you said]. Why is entropy?

Science gives us the how, philosophy fight over the scraps of why for recognition and quotability

why is choice. why is existencitialism. it is your personal motives and the drives dictated by your needs. You are the master of your destiny and you are responsible for every thing that has happened to you. that doesn't mean you are in controll, but you made a choice and you are responsible for that. No one can take that from you. Some people cling to this, some people deny it because they can't live with their decisions.

But did science dictate this? Is science the be all and end all of choice? Is choice predetermined by science, and should science be the only influencing factor in any choice.

If science answers all why's does this make the uneducated unqualified to answer or use their own thought on topics such as existentialism?

I acknowledge your contribution. If it was half as clever as it was amusing it would be Will Ferrell.

i hope so, for no other reason than to watch society crash and burn. I hate socrates because of how people say how wise the whole "a wise man says he know nothing" (paraphrase) which is an incrediblty arrogant statement considering its a veiled way for an ignorant man to claim he is wise. Science hasn't changed since then. What use is astrology, it doesn't put food on the plate. it is a waste of energy that can't ever be taken back.

I consider it a compliment that it ISN'T Will Ferrell.

obviously science rules and superstition drools, and there's one ruler in the roost of objectivity, but is n't science silent in the realm of morality? What about the science of eugenics says that is actually 'wrong'.

For every question there is also a simple answer, these more often than not are wrong. Therefore is it not better to stop questioning what is or isn't and simply enjoy what is here?

I'm neither a physicist nor a philosopher but I must say that article reads like an attack to anolytic philosophy.

I'm going to quote the article linked, in which Professor Stephen Hawckings talks about the death of Philosophy:

' Speaking to Google’s Zeitgeist Conference in Hertfordshire, the author of 'A Brief History of Time' said that fundamental questions about the nature of the universe could not be resolved without hard data such as that currently being derived from the Large Hadron Collider and space research. “Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead,” he said. “Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.” '

"Why we are here" and "where do we come from" are not question that philosophy asks.

I think that a fair question is: what is modern philosophy and what questions and problems does it address?

Edit: (I do apologize for any possible incoherencies and mistakes, insomnia is finaly taking its toll)

they are one in the same. they're driven by logic and not reason. that is why you can have something like eugenics be adopted by the public as well as superstitions like comets being the cause of famine and plague. they follow a logical conclusion that connects patterns that aren't actually connected and are patently false. But some one can connect them via coincidence. just like that one study that linked infants eating "solid foods" to childhood obesecity, thus the logical conclusion "confirmed" by the study was that foods like carrots or any thing else solid regardless of nutritional nature, was inherently bad for infants... despite the focus group in question were infants who were fed junk food like mcdonalds and so for.