TED talk question

[funkadelik]

I was watching a TED talk the other day and one of the speakers said this:

"If there is a question that affects human well-being, then it has an answer whether or not we can find that answer."

And I was wondering what people here think of such a statement.


Personally, I think it savours a bit of mysticism and I'm disinclined to think of it as a valid argument (as this gentleman was in his talk). But I don't want to let my opinion deter others from sharing theirs.

 

[Octarine]

This is not the talk is it? http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html (the first Google result)

All questions have answers, but that doesn't mean those answers will be deeply satisfying.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Nothing just happens. There are processes involved, which is to say there is an explanation, though there may very well be an infinite regression of explanations. Never the less, I believe it makes the statement true.

 

[Mole]

The Cognoscenti

The problem with TED talks is that after a while they all appear the same. I mean who can remember the last TED talk? The worst mistake you can make is to talk on TED, because you just become a TED talker - you loose you individuality. And worse no one listens to you because they are hooked on TED talks and only want to see the next one, and the next one.

TED talks appeal to our vanity in that we think we are at the cutting edge, but really, TED talks are like peanuts - once we start, we can't stop.

So watch the TED talks and become one of the cognoscenti.

 

[Octarine]

Really Victor? I think you might be projecting your own experiences onto others.

 

[Mole]

Really Victor? I think you might be projecting your own experiences onto others.

Why not deal with the issue, dear Catbert, rather than making me the issue?

 

[funkadelik]

Nothing just happens. There are processes involved, which is to say there is an explanation, though there may very well be an infinite regression of explanations. Never the less, I believe it makes the statement true.

Hm. I can stand behind that definitely.

 

[funkadelik]

The problem with TED talks is that after a while they all appear the same. I mean who can remember the last TED talk? The worst mistake you can make is to talk on TED, because you just become a TED talker - you loose you individuality. And worse no one listens to you because they are hooked on TED talks and only want to see the next one, and the next one.

TED talks appeal to our vanity in that we think we are at the cutting edge, but really, TED talks are like peanuts - once we start, we can't stop.

So watch the TED talks and become one of the cognoscenti.

I don't understand what this has to do with this thread.

I can just remove everything about the "having heard it on TED talks" part. Would that make it better?

 

[redcheerio]

"If there is a question that affects human well-being, then it has an answer whether or not we can find that answer."

And I was wondering what people here think of such a statement.

Similar to "where there's a will there's a way", but specific to human well-being....

 

[funkadelik]

Ok, spin-off question:

If we cannot find an "answer" is it really an answer? Is it our finding it and matching it to a question that makes it an answer?

Kind of like "if a tree falls in a forest with no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?" but more Platonic.

 

[Octarine]

If we cannot find an "answer" is it really an answer? Is it our finding it and matching it to a question that makes it an answer?

Well to me, there is no absolute means of judging between a non-answer and an answer. So it is the act of matching that makes it an answer.

In terms of the tree in the forest, the difficulty is separating the sound from the non-sound.

 

[Mole]

TED and Taboo

Just watch the TED talks and see that no dissent is allowed. No dissent is allowed from the audience and none is allowed on stage - it is just like church.

And no dissent is allowed in TED talks because it would break the last taboo. Yes, the last taboo is piety.

And notice when I break the taboo against impiety here, they won't address the issue I raise, rather they make me the issue.

So please be impius, rediscover your intellectual integrity and your emotional freedom.

 

[Shimmy]

Victor, don't you ever tire yourself out?

Anyway.. As for the statement in the OP. I fully agree with it to the extent of our human capabilities. As it looks now the uncertainty principle does not allow us to find the answers to all possible questions, simply because it's impossible to observe some things.

 

[redcheerio]

Ok, spin-off question:

If we cannot find an "answer" is it really an answer? Is it our finding it and matching it to a question that makes it an answer?

Kind of like "if a tree falls in a forest with no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?" but more Platonic.

Not sure if this is the angle you were interested in, but to me the word "answer" here is synonymous with "solution". Sometimes solutions are found in response to thinking long and hard about a problem and what to do about it, while other times they are discovered accidentally. Example of an accidental discovery of a solution -> post it notes.

So I guess you could say that recognizing the usefulness of the discovery is like finding the question to match the answer.

Other times there may be problems that many people spend years trying to solve. I think the only way to find solutions to the big resistant problems is to assume there is one, like the quote in the OP, then put our heads together to figure it out. The big ones usually open up multiple complex questions that need to be answered and multiple problems to be solved. And if you assume there is a solution or multiple possible solutions, it becomes a matter of where there's a will, there's a way.

 

[redcheerio]

Just watch the TED talks and see that no dissent is allowed. No dissent is allowed from the audience and none is allowed on stage - it is just like church.

And no dissent is allowed in TED talks because it would break the last taboo. Yes, the last taboo is piety.

And notice when I break the taboo against impiety here, they won't address the issue I raise, rather they make me the issue.

So please be impius, rediscover your intellectual integrity and your emotional freedom.

Ok, but you can instead come here with your intellectual integrity and emotional freedom and talk freely about the specific topic at hand, right?

Or if you're more interested in complaining about TED talks in general and their format and the people who follow them, you could start a new thread about that instead, yeah?

 

[Lord Guess]

Not sure if this is the angle you were interested in, but to me the word "answer" here is synonymous with "solution".

Not sure if I'd entirely agree with this point: every question has an answer, but not all problems have solutions. Or rather, every problem can have a pragmatic course of action to follow in order to minimize uncertainty or backlash, but it might not be a satisfactory solution per se; it might not fully solve the original issue, or the "solution" may render solving the original problem entirely pointless. Most commonly, it might cause a whole host of new troubles, any of which could cause the original one to look minor in comparison; a quick scan of any history textbook can tell you that.

So I guess you could say that recognizing the usefulness of the discovery is like finding the question to match the answer.

So true. Makes you wonder just how many possible answers we've overlooked over the years, doesn't it?

Other times there may be problems that many people spend years trying to solve. I think the only way to find solutions to the big resistant problems is to assume there is one, like the quote in the OP, then put our heads together to figure it out. The big ones usually open up multiple complex questions that need to be answered and multiple problems to be solved. And if you assume there is a solution or multiple possible solutions, it becomes a matter of where there's a will, there's a way.

Now, this I completely agree with: nothing can be worse than defeating yourself before even trying. There is nothing to lose from trying to answer these questions; even if the answers may not be satisfactory, a weak answer is better than no answer at all. Of course, getting people to agree on a good answer is a different story...

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

This is another reason why I enjoy the writers of House. In an episode he is trying to console a woman who was raped and he does not know how to do this so he asks his lackey's, Chase says something along the lines of "There is no right answer because there is no wrong one." To which House replies "Wrong, we just don't know what the right answer is..." This is somewhat of a common theme. Intelligence to be able to switch perspectives and find the right answer is key and just because we can't see it doesn't mean there isn't an answer.

I think it points towards the fact that there are right answers we just don't have enough of the picture yet. So yes if it affects animals (humans included) I imagine it does have an answer, but as said earlier it is not always fulfilling when answered.

 

[Octarine]

Not sure if this is the angle you were interested in, but to me the word "answer" here is synonymous with "solution". Sometimes solutions are found in response to thinking long and hard about a problem and what to do about it, while other times they are discovered accidentally.

But I would suggest that there are an infinite number of answers to any question, along with an infinite number of solutions. There is however only a small subset which we may consider to be suitable.

 

[Mole]

TED and Dissent

Ok, but you can instead come here with your intellectual integrity and emotional freedom and talk freely about the specific topic at hand, right?

Or if you're more interested in complaining about TED talks in general and their format and the people who follow them, you could start a new thread about that instead, yeah?

I understand dissent makes you feel uncomfortable, just as it makes the audience and speakers at TED feel uncomfortable.

But piety and dissent are not compatible, so TED has opted for piety and no dissent. Just like a church - the church of TED.

But unlike TED, TypologyCentral practises freedom of speech.

And the price we pay for freedom of speech is that sometimes we feel uncomfortable.

 

[redcheerio]

Not sure if this is the angle you were interested in, but to me the word "answer" here is synonymous with "solution".

Not sure if I'd entirely agree with this point: every question has an answer, but not all problems have solutions. Or rather, every problem can have a pragmatic course of action to follow in order to minimize uncertainty or backlash, but it might not be a satisfactory solution per se; it might not fully solve the original issue, or the "solution" may render solving the original problem entirely pointless. Most commonly, it might cause a whole host of new troubles, any of which could cause the original one to look minor in comparison; a quick scan of any history textbook can tell you that.

OK, but judging by what you wrote at the end of your post, sounds like the disagreement here is primarily semantics, yeah? Or am I missing an important point? Here's the original quote we're discussing:

"If there is a question that affects human well-being, then it has an answer whether or not we can find that answer."

So I guess you could say that recognizing the usefulness of the discovery is like finding the question to match the answer.

So true. Makes you wonder just how many possible answers we've overlooked over the years, doesn't it?

It does!! Makes me want to look at everything around me with that in mind to see what I might discover....

Other times there may be problems that many people spend years trying to solve. I think the only way to find solutions to the big resistant problems is to assume there is one, like the quote in the OP, then put our heads together to figure it out. The big ones usually open up multiple complex questions that need to be answered and multiple problems to be solved. And if you assume there is a solution or multiple possible solutions, it becomes a matter of where there's a will, there's a way.

Now, this I completely agree with: nothing can be worse than defeating yourself before even trying. There is nothing to lose from trying to answer these questions; even if the answers may not be satisfactory, a weak answer is better than no answer at all. Of course, getting people to agree on a good answer is a different story...

Exactly. And sometimes it requires multiple iterations to keep making improvements to previous solutions. Also sometimes some solutions work for some people but not others. Sometimes you can't please everyone.

This is another reason why I enjoy the writers of House. In an episode he is trying to console a woman who was raped and he does not know how to do this so he asks his lackey's, Chase says something along the lines of "There is no right answer because there is no wrong one." To which House replies "Wrong, we just don't know what the right answer is..." This is somewhat of a common theme. Intelligence to be able to switch perspectives and find the right answer is key and just because we can't see it doesn't mean there isn't an answer.

I think it points towards the fact that there are right answers we just don't have enough of the picture yet. So yes if it affects animals (humans included) I imagine it does have an answer, but as said earlier it is not always fulfilling when answered.

But I would suggest that there are an infinite number of answers to any question, along with an infinite number of solutions. There is however only a small subset which we may consider to be suitable.

I agree that there may be a multiple number of solutions, rather than one "right" solution. And each of them will have various advantages and disadvantages, which may be weighed differently to different people according to how they affect people differently, and according to how people prioritize their values.