TED Conversations

Casey Christofaris

Owner, CS3 Inc

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed.

How do we prove an answer

that it How do we prove an answer


I just want to clarify that I do love science and the understanding of the universe that it has brought us. As well as the tech

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Feb 7 2013: it would depend on the question. if it's something like "what is the speed of light?" you could prove your answer by demonstrating its measurable accuracy, and allowing the rest of the scientific community to try to come up with cases where it might not be so. however if it was something more like "what's the best pasta sauce?" you can't prove your answer because it varies with the conditions. in my experience often when someone starts their answer with something like "here, it's simple" you can be pretty sure they're wrong because they haven't thought the problem all the way through and in other possible scenarios.
    • thumb
      Feb 7 2013: Ok but once all possible scenarios are know and we see the pattern that creates new possible scenarios. Would the answer need to be common sense? To know it as truth
      • thumb
        Feb 7 2013: Oh I see you are looking for truth! Why in the world are you looking to science for truth? Science is only true until new knowledge invalidates it.

        That is a completely different question than how do you prove an answer.
        • thumb
          Feb 10 2013: Well you cant look to religion and you can't look to science for truth. But my guess is if you look to both realizing that both are both true and false all at the same time then maybe truth can be found.

          Science likes to say that this is a fractal code. Well someone created fractal codes here on earth, would it be out of the realm of wisdom that something, someone, some energy also created the fractal code that we live in?
      • Feb 7 2013: that's a good point but the problem there is common sense. what is common sense and how accurate is it? when everyone is knowledgeable and well-informed i'd say yes, but without such information many right answers seem counter-intuitive. many people still can't grasp the concept of keeping healthy by injecting yourself with a deadly disease, or can't believe you'd risk catching a cold by going outside with wet hair. here in japan "everybody knows" that you need to keep your mid-section warm in winter or you'll get sick. the 'haramaki' (belly wrap) is a common item of winter clothing here. in nearby south korea common sense says that if you sleep with your fan on during summer you'll die!
        you see the difficulty, even in defining what common sense is. what's common sense to one is ludicrous to another, and in either case common sense may be correct, incorrect, correct in certain cases, correct but only to a certain limit, etc.
        • thumb
          Feb 10 2013: You are correct common sense isn't so common. But like Einstein said it's relative. So once you can come to a common ground of understanding it would need to be universally common sense.

          What I try to do and I struggle with this daily is try to make what I have to say and express to people as common sense as possible to them their common sense not my own common sense.
      • Feb 11 2013: no my point is that common sense is very common, but everyone has different common sense and a lot of it is a very long way from being a right answer.
        what do you do when you're wrong? how about when both your common senses are in fact mistaken?
        in the city where i'm from it was discovered that plastic shopping bags made up a large portion of plastic waste, so they enacted a law that banned them, so shoppers had to bring their own reusable bags. a good common sense way to reduce waste and plastic consumption right? what followed was the plastic bag consumption went up. people who used to use shopping bags as garbage bags no longer could, and had to buy them proper garbage bags which are thicker. furthermore a health problem developed, because the tiny amount of bacteria that gets into a shopping bag was building up in the reusable bags rather than getting thrown away like it was before.
        common sense, far from being something to strive for, is as likely to lead you in the wrong direction as not.
        • thumb
          Feb 12 2013: Does this make common sense to you?


          The interesting things is, is if I had to answer my own question. This is how I would answer it:

          What would Jesus do?
          He would try to relate to the person, whether from his personal experiences or from someone else’s experiences/knowledge (parable). And respond with knowledge/wisdom that he would want to hear if it was he who came to them for help.
          That’s what Jesus would do.
          Do on to others as you would have them do on to you.
          If you imply this concept to the most fundamental parts of life you would have intuition.

          The hardest part about this is how do you relate to a person so it comes off as if the knowledge is from them selves. This is why is hard to do the "do unto others as you would have then do unto you" The answer has to be common sense. Not to the person (in this case Jesus) but to the other. It has to be their common sense not his.

          "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, who said it, no matter if I said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." ~ Siddhartha Gautama, founder of Buddhism

          But the best thing is, is that I had to start this conversation to know that. That it has to be common sense to other, to be seen as truth from their perspective
      • Feb 12 2013: you bring up some interesting points there.
        "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", do you mean to imply that the way you prefer to be treated must also be the way others also would prefer to be treated? that also implies that you personally know the best way to be treated. when i was younger i would much have preferred hanging around with my friends and playing games than being made to go to school and do homework, however i now know it was to my benefit to not be treated as i wished, and i would be similarly harming others if i were to treat them that way.
        remember jesus lived 2000 years ago, when the world was so small that you knew everyone in your village and it was easy to recognise people from other villages as outsiders. we've come a long way since then and need to update our philosophy accordingly.
        think about your buddha quote. was it not already counter-proven by my last comment? if your own common sense is mistaken, then believing something that does not agree with it means you are ignoring truth.
        • thumb
          Feb 12 2013: You are mistaken, that is not even close to what I am saying. It needs to be their common sense not yours or mine that persons that individuals. Everybody talks about this idea of world peace maybe just maybe we should see if we can come up with a common definition basically falling the same golden rule don't do harm others who don't want to be harm. However if you and your neighboring other want to go to war and kill each other and each party agrees that this would be peaceful or the greatest glory you can do for your god, then by all means do it.

          Once again its about their common sense not yours this is the only way truth can be proven
      • Feb 12 2013: you're still missing the point that it's not that simple. how about when one party wants to go to war but the other doesn't? how about a third party whose common sense says that party A should go to war but party B should not fight back? should we agree to respect someone's wishes when it doesn't agree with reason or evidence?
        many would argue that going to war solves nothing, many others would argue that sometimes it's necessary to go to war to free a people from a dictator. which is right?
        truth has nothing to do with common sense. sometimes truth can be found in common sense, but often not. if you teach a man to fish you will also deprive him of the opportunity to figure it out for himself, and what if he just wants you to give him fish and not waste his time with lessons?
        • thumb
          Feb 12 2013: You are not doing the golden rule
        • thumb
          Feb 12 2013: For the other person to know you are telling truth it has to be common sense to them
        • thumb
          Feb 12 2013: Its reciprocal, if party (y) want to have crazy kinky sex then he/she needs to find party (x) that also wants kinky sex and then the do on to others how they would want to be treated and have some crazy kinky sex. If party (y) want to have crazy kinky sex but party (z) does not want to then guess what you do on to others how you would want to be treated and don't have kinky sex with party (z) Because chances are there is something that party y does not want to do. (maybe party z want to kill some one) All he needs to do is find some one who is willing to die and kill them, if he cant find a party to kill, he doesn't do it. He respects the other person choices as if the are his own.
      • Feb 12 2013: let me try asking you a question. imagine your friend has a disease of the heart. he says "i want to live, so i'm going to inject this poison into my heart to kill the disease, so i will be fine." his common sense tells him that he has to kill his disease, but your common sense tells you that injecting poison into his heart will kill him, though he said he wishes to live. is there truth in his common sense? is it in yours? how do we know which (if either) is truth?
        • thumb
          Feb 12 2013: Sorry my common sense tell me this is how we already treat disease. See chemotherapy.....guess what it goes against common sense but it works. And the scenario you just laid out is probably close to the conversation the first chemotherapy patient had with his doctor
        • thumb
          Feb 12 2013: Truth is up to the individual to always decided, never the other. Doctors in china or japan charge their patents when the are healthy but doesn't charge when they are sick, because then that means the doctor has done or not done his job. Doctors in America charge when the patient is sick and do not charge when they are healthy. (although insurance company's charge at all times ( but that is because insurance is a legal ponzi scheme))

          Which way is right ..... Guess what truth is in the beholder ...and at the same time neither one of them can be truth. For there is no absolute truth. Truth is a matter of perspective. And if you have truth you would like to convey to a person the only way they will ever see it as truth is if it makes common sense to them.

          "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, who said it, no matter if I said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." ~ Siddhartha Gautama, founder of Buddhism

          If your truth is to go to war then by all means go to war (and call it peace) but only if the other party is also willing to go to war. Because that is the only way from a third or out side viewer to also see what you are doing is peaceful or one could say that war is a very beautiful and violent dance
      • Feb 13 2013: actually that's not true, u pay to go to the doctor here in japan and i've heard that it's the same in china.

        i think now we're getting to the crux of your argument, you think that what is right is chosen by each person, right?

        in some cases you are right, say the answer to the question "what is the most delicious desert?" 2 different answers can both be correct, but when you're talking about the answer to the question "what is the right way to treat cancer?" as you've said chemotherapy is the way to go, not injecting snake venom into the cancerous area. there is a clear right and wrong and both are independent of common sense. common sense cannot change what is effective or what works.

        truth just really is not in the eye of the beholder, sometimes to absolutely tragic results: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/opinion/21planck.html?_r=0
        common sense fails to change biology...
        • thumb
          Feb 13 2013: It doesnt matter the logic or reasoning it could be that oil is non toxic. If they find this as truth the only way your truth will ever be seen as truth to them as well is if you can relate your truth to them in a common sense manner to them. Otherwise you will both argue till your face turns blue.
      • Feb 14 2013: logic and reasoning don't matter?? perhaps that's why you are having such difficulty! if you want to convince people that oil is non-toxic, belief in your own common sense will get you nowhere; what you will need is evidence. oil being toxic or not has nothing to do with common sense, and everything to do with measurable and observable biochemical interactions.
        • thumb
          Feb 14 2013: I whole heartedly agree. But some how through their logic and reasoning they think that the truth is oil is non toxic, for this person no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise. So to get your message across you have to make it common sense to them that oil is toxic. Also like any good scientist will say your logic and reasoning can always be disproved. Other wise there would be absolute truth and we or the gods wouldn't have to prove anything to anyone. But since truth is a matter of perspective, you have to see their perspective as truth before you can ever try to convince them its not convention
      • Feb 14 2013: through their flawed logic and reasoning you mean. how do we make it common sense other than presenting the evidence and make sure they are able to understand it?

        any good scientist will not say that logic and reasoning can be disproved. the scientific methods depends on the infallibility of these things. there is absolute truth in some things, for example that oil is less dense than water, whatever a person's common sense might say, we can demonstrate that this and only this is true. we only have to prove those things for which there isn't evidence, and the way we do that is by getting evidence.

        truth is not a matter of perspective in objective things, only in subjective ones.
        do you understand the difference between subjective and objective questions?
        • thumb
          Feb 14 2013: So let me see if I can use logic and reason to show you how you need to use their logic and reason. To not prove them wrong but to show them that there is other truth. So you can pick any topic you want and any side of the said topic and I will debate the other side. See to get someone to believe what you say is truth you first have to understand their side as truth as well. Not that it wrong and it clearly might be(like anyone who would say oil is not toxic).

          It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle. ~ Sun Tzu Art of War

          Now it doesn't matter how the argument is going once I figure out how you came to your knowledge of truth I can figure out your thought "pattern" or common sense. Once I understand that I can use your common sense thats right your common sense to prove my information as truth. Not as I am right your wrong but just that there is other truth.

          And as far as Sub, object question go. I like to say that it's not that I think inside the box or outside of the box. I realize that its all box's and I try to think in all of them.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.