Is Earth a sphere?

[Wild Gazebo]

This has very little to do with right and wrong and more to do with accuracy and precision: which are common variables for reading comprehension tests.

Given the absence of precision in query one must default to accuracy in answer.

You will commonly hear people talk about being 'more right' which is a fearfully obscure term that doesn't make anyone feel any better.

The crux of the situation is that given the simplicity of the (rhetoric of the) question the respondent is logically bound to the simplicity of the answer. You will often see people responding to comprehension problems with invented narrative to fill in the lack of information in the question. This seems to be an innately gestalt way that people make meaning for themselves regardless of information given...it is very common. Unfortunately, it isn't accurate...because the answer fails to parallel the text. If you find yourself having to ask a question about the question in order to answer the question (or explaining your answer): your answer is becoming more precise than the question is asking...and beginning to become less accurate. While if you ask yourself, using the boundaries of the question, whether one answer is more accurate than the other you will find yourself in a much better position to answer the question correctly.

In the example, all you would have to ask is whether the Earth is closer to being a sphere than to not being a sphere: not whether is is closer to another shape; but, only using the yes or no dichotomy given in the query. The lack of precision of the answer is dictated through the lack of precision in the question...it is an either or.

Many people have mentioned context which gives a frame of reference for a question. This could easily be considered an addition to precision to a query that will affect the correctness of an answer.

But, for the sake of this forum, and the rhetoric given, I would have a hard time ever considering any other answer than 'yes.'

 

[Jhaelen]

It's hard to tell if the poll is a test of who believes the earth is round vs. flat, or if it's a test of who's going to quibble that Bullgrit said "Sphere" and not "oblate spheroid" which is more specific and thus more correct.

And that's why I always hated multiple choice tests in school! Without a means to explain your choices, there's really no way to tell if you are correct or not.

It also reminds me of a passage in Neal Stephenson's 'Cryptonomicon': In it, one of the protagonists, a genius mathematician, fails a rather trivial qualifying test when trying to join the army, because the questions, to him, are to imprecise to be answered in a meaningful way. E.g. one question is talking about a boat with a particular speed on a river flowing with a certain speed, so he starts wondering about things like
'where did they measure the river's speed and is the boat closer to the center of the river or to the water's edge?'

Oh, and I voted 'No', because the earth isn't a perfect sphere, only a spheroid. The difference is sufficiently pronounced that it has a great impact on the regional effects of climatic change.

 

[Umbran]

This wasn't a trick question. There was no trickery or misdirection, and no point to be made. No one who answered either way should feel in anyway tricked. It's not like I had the "correct" answer, and just wanted to spring it on anyone who answered "wrong."

With respect, Bullgrit, I think it is fair for folks to feel they were tricked. I was not, because I've seen these threads of yours before, but for others, there is a bit of a trick.

You intentionally worded your question vaguely so that in answering people would not infer the real reason for the question. When your purpose in asking is intentionally veiled from the audience without them knowing, you are misleading people - tricking them. Then you step in and go, "Oh, ho! You see, I was running an experiment on you, to learn how you think!" It can come across like a "Candid Camera" moment, whatever your intention. And you should not be surprised. As I recall, this is not the first time folks have taken umbrage at the technique.

It seems you have to become defensive every time you do this. Perhaps it is time for you to change how you go about it.

 

[Hand of Evil]

MMMM, thick or not, it is still interesting in the feeling it was a trick question. Simple question that people have to then pull from their knowledge to base an answer on. Based on the answers put forth, other posters then base their answers on the subject, so the more answers with explanations proving their point, the more the divided becomes between yes or no.

 

[tomBitonti]

Hmm,

Was wondering: For what would one answer yes to the question?

Are most crystal balls spheres? Are well inflated basketballs spheres? Are marbles spheres? Are any of these spheres?

http://www.ebay.com/bhp/crystal-sphere

Thx!

TomB

 

[Bullgrit]

I think it is fair for folks to feel they were tricked.

Would anyone have answered the question differently? I mean, when I think of a "trick question," I think of being tricked into answering incorrectly or in a way I wouldn't normally or wouldn't want to answer. Does anyone feel tricked? Does anyone want to change their vote after learning that I know the precise dimensions of Earth? Does anyone who answered wish they had not answered? I even said I voted Yes, but I know Earth is not a mathematically precise sphere. (For general purposes, I think “sphere” is fine.) Does anyone who also voted Yes think, "Damn, he tricked me into seeming ignorant."? Or anyone who voted No think, "Damn, he tricked me into seeming pedantic."?

"I know the precise shape and dimensions of Earth, but I'm curious how you would answer the question: Is Earth a sphere?" Would phrasing the poll this way elicit different votes?

I also don’t see why some need me to construct a context outside of this one right here that we’re all in.

You intentionally worded your question vaguely so that in answering people would not infer the real reason for the question.

See, that's strange to me. I thought I worded the question pretty damn precisely and succinctly. I intentionally left out language that could mislead or be misconstrued.

"Oh, ho! You see, I was running an experiment on you, to learn how you think!" It can come across like a "Candid Camera" moment, whatever your intention. And you should not be surprised. As I recall, this is not the first time folks have taken umbrage at the technique.

People have accused me of having a point to make with some questions, yes. Some questions, I ask to learn *the* answer. Some questions, I ask to learn what people think. I don’t think I’ve ever asked a question here to trick anyone or to use the discussion to make a point for one answer or another. I could ask what is 2+2, and some people would accuse me of having a surprise point to make.

It’s not like I post a pic of some feminine transsexual model and ask, “Would you make out with this woman?”
Later: “Ha! It’s a man! You’d make out with a man! LOL!”

My idea is more along the lines of asking, “Is Chaz Bono a man or woman?”
Even if I later state that I know Chaz was born a woman and has had gender reassignment surgery, it doesn’t make the question a trick.

The same with this, “Is Earth a sphere?” question. I don’t see how me later revealing that I know Earth’s diameter makes it a trick question.

(You know, that Chaz Bono question would make for an interesting discussion.)

What I have learned from this and other similar discussions is that when I ask a question, I should stay completely out of the ensuing discussion. Which is a shame because I start discussions to *have a discussion*.

Bullgrit

 

[Wild Gazebo]

The intention of the question is irrelevant to the answer. All the information you need is in the question. If you need more information to answer the question, you are leaning toward misunderstanding the question and getting the answer incorrect. Inventing a narrative, or motive, to parallel the question means you have failed to comprehend the question or the scope of the question.

The quality of the question is a separate discussion that usually includes intention or motive.

 

[Janx]

What I have learned from this and other similar discussions is that when I ask a question, I should stay completely out of the ensuing discussion. Which is a shame because I start discussions to *have a discussion*.

Bullgrit

Well, I'd hate to not have you participate, but in the same vein, if I call your question a trick question, you can't get defensive about it. What I call your question is not really the important detail of the conversation.

I certainly don't mean "trick" to mean that you had ill intent or pulled a fast one on us.

but the question itself is tricky because it is too simplistic for the audience at hand. If you were asking 1st graders, it might be that simple. But pretty much everybody around here knows the earth ain't perfectly round, and that therefore if you were asking it, there was more to the question that was unseen.

One of the annoying things that happens at work is I get asked a Yes/No question about complex things. And the questions are poorly qualified, so I end up needing to ask more questions and give a longer answer. And that makes me look like I can't answer a simple question.

Now I can always use to improve my answering capabilities, but the other side really needs to exert some effort to understand the domain and ask better questions as well.

"Is Chaz Bono a man or woman?" is one of those questions. Anybody reasonably versed in the material knows the topic isn't black and white. There's a geneticly defined gender, a physical gender (what parts are there) and even a mental gender (the very thing that causes somebody to desire a sex change).

While some might think such a question invites discussion, instead it invites argument, semantic debates all under the guise of innocent question.

Would it not be better to be more upfront?

Since Chaz Bono has female DNA and now has been reconfigured into male anatomy, how would one classify a Bono's gender?

Now, it's not being Tricky.

 

[Morrus]

The intention of the question is irrelevant to the answer. All the information you need is in the question. If you need more information to answer the question, you are leaning toward misunderstanding the question and getting the answer incorrect. Inventing a narrative, or motive, to parallel the question means you have failed to comprehend the question or the scope of the question.

The quality of the question is a separate discussion that usually includes intention or motive.

That's completely not how language works. No sentence, question, or statement exists in a vacuum. That's also not how human beings work, or how they communicate. Computers? Perhaps. People? Not so much.

Everything has a context, and that context informs the thing. The context in this case was hidden and later revealed.

 

[Bullgrit]

you can't get defensive about it

This kind of thing is frustrating. Accusations are made, and I shouldn't defend?

Since Chaz Bono has female DNA and now has been reconfigured into male anatomy, how would one classify a Bono's gender?

Well, first off, that whole first part, (before the comma), is unnecessary to state unless the person being asked doesn't know who Chaz Bono is -- they don't know why you'd ask about the person's sex. (If they don't know, they should either look it up, or not answer the question.) The second part . . . *that's* how to ask a vague question. "One" is an indefinite pronoun meaning generally "a person." Who is the "one" (this general, indefinite person)? Me? Or a lawyer? Or a doctor? Or a person on the street who doesn't know Chaz Bono?

Asking simply, "Is Chaz Bono a man or woman?" is pretty direct and clear. You're asking an answer of me, (or God, maybe).

Is Earth a sphere?
Would one define Earth as a sphere?

Is it raining?
Since water is falling from the sky, would one define the weather as raining?

Everything has a context, and that context informs the thing. The context in this case was hidden and later revealed.

No, no, no. The context was not hidden, ever. Either I'm literally going insane, (or am just stupid), or people are really trying hard to make a controversy here. This forum, this site, this group of people, *this* *is* the *context*.

Imagine:

I walk down a hall and ask someone, "What time is it?" The person looks at their watch and tells me the time.

I ask another person, and they look at their watch and tell me the time.

I ask another person, and they look at their watch and tell me the time.

So on and so on.

I then "reveal" off hand that I didn't need to know the time, I was just curious how much different everyone's watches were set.

The discovery could be interesting in that everyone's time was exactly the same, (all based on the universal atomic clock), or the time varied by up to 10 minutes. Or maybe we learn that most people use a cell phone instead of a watch to tell time.

Trick question? Was there any doubt about the context, (what time zone)?

Hol-lee crap. Honestly, I am stunned.

Bullgrit