Why isn't the sky blue?

[EvaRia]

I just had a fail discussion with my dad today. I asked, and he said I could post it.
I went something like this, except this version is me trying to remember and is thus much shorter:

Me: Before you ask why, you should always ask why not. (this is me coming up with something quote-worthy? lol)
Dad: No you shouldn't. Why and why not are essentially asking the same question.
Me: What? No they're not.
Dad: Of course they are. It's like asking what. What is that? What is that not? Same thing.
Me: How is it the same? You get different answers. That's a car. It's not a bike.
Dad: But they imply the same thing. Why would you even say what is that not? It doesn't make sense.
Me: How does it not make sense?
Dad: How can you answer it if there's millions of answers? Like that: (points to a car) What would you say if I asked you what that wasn't?
Me: That's not the sky?
Dad: It doesn't work. There's no way to give all the possible answers.
Me: So just because there's millions of answers, it doesn't make sense?
Dad: That's right. There's no way to answer it.
Me: So just because you can't answer a question, it doesn't make sense?
Dad: That's right.
Dad: Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that asking why and why not is basically asking the same thing.
Me: So, if I asked "Why is the sky blue?" and "Why isn't the sky blue?" it would be basically asking the same thing?
Dad: That's right!
Me: That doesn't make sense. How can you ask why the sky isn't blue if it IS blue?
Dad: You can't. That doesn't make sense.
Me: But it's the same thing as asking why the sky is blue?
Dad: That's right!
Me: O_O ???

Anyways, it went something like that.
Any of you have any discussions where someone's logic just... fails?

[ddevans96]

lol nice. That's my kind of logic right there.

[Demagog]

My favorite argument is "I'm always right, and you can't prove otherwise."

[Taparu]

but wait the question "why is the sky not blue?" is null because the sky is blue and therefore can't be the same as "why is the sky blue?".

The difference between what your dad was pointing out and what you couldn't understand can be summed up into 2 words noun, adjective.

in the sky blue questions blue is the main point of your question while in the car example the car was the main point.

Therefore making both of your sides of the argument true

[Bloodshadow]

Why isn't the sky blue? Because when you look up, you see a blue sky. Now you can ask why the sky is blue.

[dexterkwan]

I love to confuse my parents 
They always cant be bothered, say i too stubborn and cant accept the facts.
Parents always limit their knowledge... i try to find our soemthing new and why, they say:" no, just no."
...
My dad also says i can go for an arguement competition. lol

[smuglapse]

Reminds me of this:

[manaboy100]

OMGWTFBBQICANTREADITANYWAY

I don't understand, what is the connection of sky and car ???

[Malignant]

[nerd1]

there is jut one problem with your argument- the sky isn't blue, its the color of smiley
 

[Kuross]

The problem in general logic is that a thing can be something and not something else and still be completely valid. To say X thing is a car and not a turnip can both be true. But with the question of "why" there tends to have a causal connection to the inherent topic of the question. It's the causal connection that actual makes sense with the conversation above. To ask "why is the sky blue" can be asked in the same context as "why is the sky not orange" but both are dependant on the conditions prior to the topic of the question for the why to be answered. To prove the causal connection, simply remember any childhood moment where you pestered someone with "why" as in "why do I have to go to school- because it's the law- why is it the law- because the government said so- why did the government say so..." so on and so forth. However, the fault from the conversation comes how the question of why is asked. One aspect of the conversation attributes a condition of the sky where as the other aspect leaves the answer open to many possiblities. Asking "Why is not the sky blue" is incorrect way to ask, due to the added attribute, but "why is the sky blue" has many variations of a correct answer and is therefore not specific enough to answer succinctly.

Now that I think about it, I just wasted that short amount of time typing up a short response to a logic issue and I doubt I am completely right or if anyone will even care! It's been way too long since I was in logic class in college. 

[Krahhl]

^ ...?

Anyways, my explanation is that what and why are different questions.

When you ask what something is or isn't, the only thing you give is the "something". That's only one constant, and everything else is a variable which can change. However, when you ask why something is, you're giving the "is" and the "something", so you now have two constants. Therefore, they have to agree, or your question doesn't make sense.

In "What is the sky?" and "What isn't the sky?, "the sky" doesn't have anything it needs to agree with, so both are valid questions.

In "Why is the sky blue?", "the sky" and "blue" agree, so it is a valid question. In "Why is the sky not blue?", "the sky" and "not blue" don't agree, so it doesn't make sense.