TED Conversations

Allan Macdougall

TEDCRED 50+

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

Which is the more powerful in solving the world's biggest problems - Doubt or Certainty?

When confronted with seemingly insurmountable problems, what would be the advantages and disadvantages of each approach?

When doubt or certainty are allied to belief systems and/or conventional wisdom, do they become and more - or less - powerful in their ability to solve such problems?

Is it better to try to view the overall picture of a problem in order to solve it and then work towards the relevant detail, or to be more focused on close-up detail first and then to work outwards to try and find the bigger context?

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Dec 19 2012: I began worrying about political and world affairs in the mid 80s after my worldview crashed and I noticed so much that I hadn't noticed before. At that point, I began to educate myself so that I could create a new worldview based on evidence rather than superstition.

    I found that the more educated I became, the more I could see world and US affairs in a broader context. As I studied original documents (rather than history books that are filled with lies), I could trace the problems in the USA back and at the same time, see how the US is spreading a kind of insanity around the world. As I studied quantum physics and comparative religions - along with religious history from the earliest possible documents - and I studied math and literature and non-mainstream ideas about reality, my understanding changed enormously. As I TESTED my assumptions and discarded those that could not be explained rationally, (logically) and those that were not supported with evidence, I found my own explanation for all that happens in my reality.

    So I would suggest that rather than look at the big picture or the small one, we should look at ourselves. Our educational systems have been designed by the great industrialists who made it clear that they did not want to produce educated people (a threat to their superior wealth-based positions in the culture), but who wanted to create workers.

    In the USA, the Dept. of Ed's mission statement is to prepare students for global competititon. (To serve the military industrial complex) Toward this end, there is much that is NOT taught in schools and much that is just plain provable lies.

    This leaves people with a distorted view of reality, never able to see the first cause of the disruption that occurred in our history. If people were to see that, they could fix the problem at its core. But for as long as the agenda in education remains as it is, we imperil & enslave ourselves because of our ignorance.
    • thumb
      Dec 19 2012: Ah - now this is something that's troubling me. Is a worldview based on evidence, rationality and logic, one that is heading primarily towards only certainty?

      I'm by no means an advocate of superstition, but I do recognise the power of intuition - which some would say, comes from a similar place.

      I entirely see the importance of evidenced information, but do you think it needs the all-important context to establish its viability and sustainability in a wider world? In order to overcome the bigger world problems, should the context should be set first in order for the evidenced detail to work within it - and would that be more an intuitive approach, rather than one based on rationality?

      "I would suggest that rather than look at the big picture or the small one, we should look at ourselves" - Great point!

      I absolutely agree with your insights on the education system and the distorted views of reality it's engendered.

      You seem to have had a good, rounded education from studying quantum physics, math, literature and religion. You say that has been instrumental in finding your own reality, which I think is entirely admirable.

      From the standpoint of that reality how would you tackle, say, the issue of climate change? Is it enough to just rationalise our way out of that one - and would that start with education? Is there enough time for that, given that it may take several generations for a more enlightened worldview to establish itself?

      Sorry - so many questions!
      • thumb

        Gail . 50+

        • +1
        Dec 19 2012: Let me begin by saying that I do not discount intuition. I have been a psychic with an impressive track record and following. I rely on the intuitive to send me in a direction. But then I go in that direction to look for evidence.

        As to climate change, I think that it is well beyond time to EDUCATE. It's a matter of simple math and uncomplicated logic.

        There are now more than 7 billion people on the earth, and that number is growing exponentially.
        There is now global warming that is taking away arable lands and drying up aquifers. (In the US, the great Colorado River will no longer reach the sea by the end of this decade). There will not be enough food/water to support such a large population.

        Our fiscal paradigm fosters global warming and other resource destroying behaviors. As you study economics, you will see that it was established to create disparity of wealth, with "natural law" (death by poverty) taking care of the poor who cannot take care of themselves. (It's a really sick system).

        As you study the social ills around the world, you will see how almost all of them are tied to our fiscal paradigm. Look at education, crime, drugs, unemployment, pollution, and other ills to see that our global fiscal paradigm exacerbates all of the problems.

        There are far too many who do not want the only cure - do not want to see truth. Take the man in Africa who recently posted about the need for fertility clinics in Africa because lack of nutrition, medical care, & health care was causing infertility. I suggested that Africa has a huge population of children orphaned by AIDS with no adult supervision. It didn't make sense to bring children into a world without enough resources to support them. I was told that adoption is not culturally acceptable.

        By 2030, 28% of global population will be hungry/thirsty - even in the US & UK. But people don't dare look at the numbers or the solution.

        Infestations take care of themselves. We ARE an infestation.
        • thumb
          Dec 21 2012: "As to climate change, I think that it is well beyond time to EDUCATE. It's a matter of simple math and uncomplicated logic..."

          I'm tempted to say that logic and math are also rooted in certainty, but on the other hand, I think you're probably right - simple math and logic might be the quick fix answer we need, as long as logic can also accommodate intuitive beginnings in a remedial process.

          "Infestations take care of themselves. We ARE an infestation."

          I happen to agree with this statement that we are an infestation, but not sure what you mean by "taking care of themselves". Do you mean in the ecological sense that when a species reaches critical mass, environmental factors kick in to regulate numbers? - a bit like a plague of locusts, when food sources run out?

          I look forward to reading your reply, but i have to leave earlier than expected for Christmas so probably can't respond - apologies in advance!

          Have a great Christmas!

          Allan
      • thumb
        Dec 22 2012: When I say that infestations take care of themselves, I mean that global warming will reduce our numbers (in a most horrible way), but it is more than likely that a plague and/or war will join it. That will bring our numbers down. We do have a war-based economy, after all.

        If the USA alone were to declare peace, it would bring down the global economy almost immediately. Then natural law (death by poverty) will have its effects, and those who have never learned how to be part of a community or survive off the land will have their come-uppence. (as will the politicians and banksters who put us in this position).

        In the USA (and I can only speak for the US due to lack of knowledge), crops rotted in the field because farmers couldn't afford to buy the gas to get the crops to market and America's bread basket is very remote due to its size.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.