TED Conversations

Robert Jeep

Design Engineer in mechanics,

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Can we question the great thinkers of the past, will people even allow this? To change someone's mind is ALMOST impossible.

I love the scientists and philosophers that came before me and in no way do I assume I am smarter than anyone in the world, past, present, future. However in order to finish the work they started we may have to prove them wrong. Some of these ideas have become the truth we know.
If I were to ask Albert Einstein if mass becomes irrelevant at the speed of light would his theory be different? If I asked Issac Newton to explain meters per second squared (m/s²) could he or would it be better explained s/m²?
I believe in gravity and the mass equivalence equation, I just think we have to explain them so that everyone understands. These were just ideas a couple of years ago, relatively speaking, along with the center of the universe and the Earth being flat. Sure we have explained those over time but we are basically running out of time and people are getting very restless.
So we should probably start by finding ways to explain things.
Temperature is another issue we just have not explained to the masses well enough. If people actually understood that temperature was a battle to find equilibrium between all kinds of pressure systems, they could then understand why we have Acts of God and why some places probably should not have so many people.
The problem is not with what we will find out in the future because everyone is excited for that, the problem comes with explaining it to 7 billion people who have believed this other way their whole lives.

+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    May 16 2012: It is a generally accepted paradigm that each succeeding generation is superior than the preceding one. Genes mutate for the better. Therefore it is healthy & natural to question the past. Wisdom is the preserve of humanity, not heavens. And new theses are nothing but synthesis of the preexisting knowledge. Therefore it is advisable to stop at a reasonable point in past to avoid unnecessary confusion. Knowledge like humans & other material substances grow old and replaced. To get clarity on the subject please read Jean baulliard's works. Baudrillard says,"The Illusion of the End -When ice freezes, all the excrement rises to the surface. And so, when the dialectic was frozen, all the sacred excrement of the dialectic came to the surface. When the future is deep-frozen – and, indeed, even the present – we shall see all the excrement come up from the past.
    The problem then becomes one of waste. It is not just material substances, including nuclear ones, which pose a waste problem but also the defunct ideologies, bygone utopias, dead concepts and fossilized ideas which continue to pollute our mental space. Historical and intellectual refuse pose an even more serious problem than industrial waste. Who will rid us of the sedimentation of centuries of stupidity? As for history – that living lump of waste, that dying monster which, like the corpse in Ionesco, continues to swell after it has died – how are we to be rid of it? (Baudrillard 1994, p.26)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.