TED Community » Christopher Sean Thomas

More About Me

I'm passionate about

Life, Love, Meaning, Technology, The Bigger Picture. I am passionate about almost everything, I am mostly interested in how everything comes together in this world, and the things that compose it.

An idea worth spreading

The application of diminishing returns into the global societies failing points, and removing the restrictions from what elevates our civilization while moving it in the direction of progress.

Talk to me about

Anything that shows me that you believe that life is great, and that we can have positive change as a whole, that you believe people are dynamic, or show me the error in my current understanding.

People don't know that I'm good at

Even I am not sure what I am good at, so I have no idea what others think I am good at or not.

Comments

• TEDCred score: +10.40 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A reply on Conversation: How do we know what we know, and how should we? My ultimate question, and hopefully the right forum for answers.

  Feb 26 2011: Philosophy is a side interest to me in a big way, and while in no way could I call myself an expert, it is an area I can really love when the possible answers it gives you isn't like a snake eating its own tail.. You made some good philosophical points, but like so much of philosophy you can end up with the answer to a question my creating one or more new questions. If you could give a more literal answer what would you say? I imagine I could have been more clear and concise with my question, but hopefully this clears it up a bit. I guess I would ask how could those philosophical answers be applied to the problem we have at the complex level things are at now in most cultures?

• A reply on Conversation: How do we know what we know, and how should we? My ultimate question, and hopefully the right forum for answers.

  Feb 26 2011: I think that you and I would come to a very similar conclusion.. I don't know what I am good at, evidently I am good at things that I FEEL like I have no clue about, and I never find myself believing I am any kind of expert.
  You hit the nail on the head about people wanting others to make their choices for them, and to some degree I can understand why people would do that-- we all get so busy in life, many times without choice, that taking a few minutes for yourself, that if your choice is between reading a book for fun or researching a medication, most of us would indulge and trust that there is a reason they are the doctor and we aren't.
  I guess the question would be more along the lines of how do we fix that? Hertz made one of the most compelling well worded case for this that I have heard, but the problem is at such an epic scale, and the reasons I think we do it remain, us being too busy to do it all..
  I guess that goes back to what I stated as part of the original post, that everything in life is simple until we go and make it complex, which we need to do to a large degree to understand these things as a concept.. but from the smartphone in your pocket, to the job that doesn't pay enough, to the dishes that don't do themselves, family, friends, and who knows how many other responsibilities many of us have..
  I may know some things, but I don't think I "know" much at all. I think that is part of what let me reach whatever point I am at, yet to some degree I feel like not having a better answer to this question may lead to a roadblock in my path. Thank you for taking the time to put such a well thought out answer, you gave me something to chew on at least!

• A reply on Conversation: Can people who deny science be educated? How?

  Feb 24 2011: You said:"I would claim that they either believe something contrary to truth, or something redundant (i.e. something that cannot be proven nor dis-proven)."
  I have this instructor teaching sociology that made a point the other day that was pretty powerful.. regardless of how true or untrue what someone's belief is, if you take the example of a terrorist who destroys his body during a suicide bombing, he believes in what he believes more than anyone else can ever claim.
  Science is fallible because it is in our heads, being used by words, that are so very flexible and fragile. We all accept that what goes up(like when we jump) will come down, even if some don't accept the explanation of gravity that makes it possible. Not all science is so concrete I think, so many things science has explained, then re-explained or theorized when it didn't have it quite right the last time, or the time before.
  The sun revolved around the earth at one point remember? That was until some other "scientist" proved that it didn't. Both used science as the basis of theories that were widely accepted by the scientific community of the time. What if there is an ever BETTER explanation, the last theory not quite being wrong, just not being complete..
  
  Does that make science imperfect, or just so flexible in our minds that we forgive it for it's transgressions, blaming those individuals who were the REAL culprits.. right?
  
  Until science can prove or disprove everything that is, we need alternate perspectives to be able to look at those things, because as far as I know.. there are many legitimate questions that science, as it is now, is inadequate to even frame as a question, much less find an answer for. For some that is the faith, for others the mystery, and others(myself would be one) the beauty of whatever this reality we are all coexisting on/in.
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Can people who deny science be educated? How?

  Feb 24 2011: Not everything in this world is quantifiable and measurable, reproducible, and able to have its mystery sucked out of it so it can be properly categorized and made small. Not all science does that either. The social sciences, that so many in the scientific world don't like or do not understand, try to apply much of what you just said to things that are harder to understand.
  
  When you are attracted to a person of the opposite sex, neurons fire, hormones are released, and who knows how many other processes happen during the course of "mating". But when we make love, the feelings we have, the possible connection we feel, which may or may not be reproducible(and may never happen again) or any other way scientifically studied(except abstractly through statistics maybe?), should not be chalked up to ignorance. It is why science is not, in my opinion, absolute and undeniable.. it doesn't take into account all the many special things that can't be explained, or maybe SHOULDN'T be explained..
  
  I know you are arguing religion specifically, but I am arguing extremism.. any belief taken too far, too absolutely, is EQUALLY fallible, and likely just as bad. I thank god, or whatever the hell it is that allows us to exist, be it strings, or one of those ancient religions, that there is so much diversity in life and in people for us to all be able to type on keyboards, and send information flying every direction simultaneously so we can all see it. Yes, science made it possible, and so did whatever it is that made science possible, be it potential, big bangs, or anything else.
  
  I have a few characters left, so here are last thoughts. Everything is amazing, and nobodies happy http://youtu.be/8r1CZTLk-Gk
  
  I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.
  -ALBERT EINSTEIN
  
  So much to consider that I could never, ever, ever, make my world so small as you sound like you have.

• A comment on Conversation: Can people who deny science be educated? How?

  Feb 24 2011: Not enough words allowed to say it all at once, but I will keep it short.
  My answer: I think you asked the wrong question.
  Specifically, can all people who deny science be INFLUENCED? If that was the question, I would give a resounding yes.
  You said: "Some of my undergraduate students deny scientific research with the following claims: (1) my experience shows otherwise, (2) scientific results are always changing, (3) each person has his own truth."
  You would try to get them to disbelieve their own experiences, rather than over time let them experience the truth you shared with them(if it turns out to be an absolute truth)?
  Do you argue that scientific results(theories) aren't always changing?Are atoms the smallest? Protons? Quarks? What happens when you bring in string theory..? Results can be looked at from more than one way, and support more than one answer, and nothing can be more frustrating. I understand their frustration.
  Each person does have their own truth. We all see through different eyes, our senses(as in the quote in previous post) are possibly inadequate to share what is all around us, or perhaps they are all unique. One of the few fundamental truths, of an absolute certainty, is that we shall all one day die. Let them have their own truth, because none of us truly and absolutely know what we do after death.. and although you try to arm them for this life, maybe they are arming themselves for whatever is next, if anything.
  
  I don't mean to sound too critical or maybe cynical, I would just say maybe you expect too much of yourself or others. You see the beauty in what you are trying to teach them(I hope), and you want nothing other than to communicate that beauty. Perhaps just putting in their head that that beauty may exist will one day lead to a revelation you will never get to see, but do you do it for that reward, the knowledge that you have changed someone?
  
  If you are teaching right, only one person may be changed, but they may change the world..

• A comment on Conversation: Can people who deny science be educated? How?

  Feb 24 2011: I definitely have not read all of the comments, but I have a feeling not many will share this viewpoint without looking at it in a more general way.
  "I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."
  -ALBERT EINSTEIN
  There are a few things I would say or ask.
  What I would ask:Why do you want people who deny science to be educated? Who in particular do you think needs this education, or at least more specifically, and what would this education accomplish really?
  I will say:
  I think that you would want people to be educated for a number of reasons, a big one being that "science makes sense", and I am sure numerous others. To strike down ignorance maybe? But although science does make sense, and in a general way it adds up.. is science the end all be all way to look at the world? I am sure there are a number of ted talks that could give possible explanations(education kills creativity is one that comes to mind), but the question is, science as it is right now or will grow up to be, is this the most accurate way of looking at the world?
  
  I also think I have an idea of who you would be talking about, most likely people who believe so strongly in something else that they don't know how they can believe in science and still have their beliefs coexist. The easiest to come to mind(and really one of the only) would be the religiously devout. Unbending people who believe in stories more than they believe what is in front of their eyes. Extremists maybe? Although not the best viewpoint for co-existing and prospering, their perspective may be one of the few left to bring us under scrutiny, and keep us "honest".. keep us from making logical fallacies that everything can and should be explained away, that it is better that way.
  
  And what would this accomplish.. perhaps you haven't seen how many(not all) scientists look at the world. Clinically. Factually. It can be sad.
• +1

  A comment on Talk: Noreena Hertz: How to use experts -- and when not to

  Feb 24 2011: I think she said some words right off the bat that make all the sense in the world.. "We believe that experts are more able to process information than we can, that they are able to come to better conclusions than we can on our own.." This is something I have tried to say before in discussions with friends..
  She says experts need to change their methods, but I would say we need to change our views of experts. I think that she is making a case for collaboration between experts and everyone else, rather than taking their words as gospel.
  She mentions mistakes experts makes, and it makes me think about how forgiving we are of those mistakes, and I wonder why? She talks about encouraging decent, which to me is what sounds like collaboration between peers. Not uncommon among equals, but evidently it doesn't happen when they are on a pedestal above or below ourselves. Who wants to be questioned?
  I think that the negative feedback I am seeing in the comments is just a reaction people have to the idea of questioning something they are so dependent on.
  
  I think the ideas expressed here, along with delivery, is among the best I have seen on ted, it embodies the very concepts that every ted talk represents. If she is right, the part of the brain that provokes independent thought turns off when an expert speaks, then why here are people so obviously challenging her ideas? I don't think many people here WANT to believe her, because if she is right this challenges just about every belief they have in experts ability to take the load off of our plates.
  
  Maybe she said it too brutally, too directly, maybe people need it more sugar coated than words like "rebellion" can tell them.. that probably sounds too much like more work for some. And it is more work to have to think and contribute.. but the concept of collaborating is a NEED, force the experts to defend their belief against people who may not have such a narrow understanding BECAUSE of their lack of expertise.

• A comment on Talk: Ze Frank's web playroom

  Oct 24 2010: I really liked what he had to say, there is something great in bringing people together for each other, and these social experiments are even better because they can help change the way someone sees things. It is always nice to see someone think outside the box to get things done, and ze frank does that.

• A reply on Talk: Jessica Jackley: Poverty, money -- and love

  Oct 19 2010: I believe it has to do with teaching a man to fish versus giving him a fish, and also the people who DO take advantage of these microloans and entrepreneurs help will act as a beacon of hope and inspiration to so many others.
  You must have missed the last thing she said about believing in each other, people want to help themselves and others.. it is that potential that she is talking about, and the people helped can then go on and help others(and potentially whatever they're business is will help others also)

• A comment on Talk: Jessica Jackley: Poverty, money -- and love

  Oct 19 2010: You know, I have to say, if there were more people walking around with the kind of passion she shows so readily, so many things would be different. This talk was enlightening and inspiring, it is so great because it helps to show you that if you try hard enough you can make your passions work for everyone.. I hope to one day be able to say I have done or tried as much as she obviously did!