TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. " Is it really right?

So I posted this quote as my google statues and my friend had an Idea:
"Unless you don't have a reliable standard to compare that clock with, it is useless to consider this fact that the clock might be right 2 times. Clock is a measurement instrument with which you measure something else, so if you wan't to verify it you need another clock which works 100% correct"
What do you think? Shouldn't we consider that maybe others can be right sometimes? How can we define this "standard" that my friend mentioned?

Topics: philosophy
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jul 4 2013: So from your clock metaphor, predicting something correctly once or twice should not lead us to conclude that the model used to make those predictions is reliable. It might be just like a broken clock.

    I don't think we can expect any source to be 100% reliable, but we can increase our confidence in conclusions when multiple independent sources using different methods agree.
    • thumb
      Jul 5 2013: Thank Fritzie, I think what you are emphasizing here is "system's reliability". And you are suggesting that we can increase system's reliability by multiplying our sources.
      There are systems like human being judgment system that have limited sources. When the time is limited and we are making a decision, like in our day lives, we can only rely on our feelings. Can you describe some more about this "reliability"?
      • thumb
        Jul 5 2013: I am not offering anything unusual here. If you are inquiring into a matter for purposes of making a judgment, it is wise to consider more than one person's point of view or understanding of the matter in situations in which no individual might be considered fully reliable or unbiased.

        We typically act in almost every circumstance with incomplete information.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.