The Raven Paradox - A Critique of the Scientific Method
80The Raven Paradox - The Flaws in the Scientific Method
Hempel's Logic
All scientists use reasoning and logic at some stage, to create hypotheses and design robust experiments. In a beautiful and elegant treatise, the German philosopher Carl G Hempel, in 1965, showed that there were flaws in these long-established processes. His Raven Paradox called into question the established processes of inductive reasoning, generalization and falsifiability
The Inductive Hypothesis
Imagine that a scientist, after years of going for long walks in the countryside, observes that every single raven he has ever seen is black. As a dutiful researcher, he uses inductive reasoning to postulate the hypothesis:
“All ravens are black.”
This is a perfectly acceptable conditional hypothesis. Firstly, it is testable, because you could sample raven populations and verify that they are all black. The statement is also falsifiable because even one non-black raven amongst the sampled population would disprove the hypothesis.
This is all great science, so far, following the established methods of inductive reasoning. The researcher could even design an experiment to sample raven populations, with thousands of ravens observed. If they are all black, the hypothesis is supported and plausible. Over time, repeated experiments and observations further confirm this and the hypothesis becomes accepted as a law.
Relevant Books
 | Amazon Price: $4.99 List Price: $11.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $32.74 List Price: $37.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $23.00 List Price: $29.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $49.89 |
The Problem of Generalization and Falsifiability
The first part of the Raven Paradox proposal questions the process of generalization. It is practically impossible to sample every single raven in the world and there may a few non-black individuals. Hempel was not trying to comment upon the exact science, but as an interesting aside, about 1 in 10 000 raven eggs contain partially or fully albino birds.
Most albino birds are more visible to predators, suffer from health problems and may be a localized phenomenon. The odds of seeing an albino raven are very small and sightings are extremely rare. A researcher could sample many thousands of Ravens and not see one white bird, even though they do exist.
Thus, the notion of falsifiability is questioned and undermined by the Raven Paradox. Although the original hypothesis is technically falsifiable, in practical terms it is very difficult to disprove, because the chances of observing a white Raven are very slim. Even if you sampled the entire known population of ravens, there may be an undiscovered group containing a non-black individual.
Flaws in the Inductive Reasoning Process
The next part of the Raven Paradox questions the processes of reasoning and deduction that are an integral part of the scientific process. When a researcher states that all ravens are black, the laws of logic demand that this conditional statement has a contrapositive, statement.
Therefore, according to inductive reasoning, “Everything that is not black is not a raven.” This means that every non-black object observed, that is not a raven, equally strengthens the hypothesis. There are a countless number of non-black objects in the universe and we should pity the poor statistician who has to analyze this!
To take the analogy further, another researcher in another part of world, through fluke, may have only seen one raven in their life, which happened to be white. Their deduced hypothesis may be that “All ravens are white.” Every non-white object, which is not a raven, strengthens this opposing hypothesis too. This is the Raven Paradox.
The Raven Paradox - The End of the Scientific Process?
What does this paradox mean? Has the world of science come crashing down around our ears?
The answer is a resounding NO!
The Raven Paradox is a useful philosophical observation and helps to ensure that we constantly probe and test the steps of the established scientific processes. The examples given in the paradox are simplistic and unlikely, merely serving as an exercise to test the boundaries of the philosophy of science.
In reality, for the vast majority of cases, Hempel’s treatise makes no difference and the normal reasoning and experimental design processes work perfectly well. The paradox does not detract from science, but actually enhances it, by preventing scientists from believing that they have proved something beyond doubt.
The Raven Paradox should remind every scientist of the dangers of generalization and that they must ensure that all hypotheses are realistically falsifiable. If the researcher has said, “All ravens in Norway are black”, this is more realistic as ornithologists could feasibly observe every raven in Norway.
Paradigm Shifts
Even long-standing theories, which became established as laws and immovable paradigms, can be proved incorrect over time. Science is really all about testing probabilities and assumption. If something has a 99% chance of being correct then it should be accepted as the likely explanation.
The chances of someone seeing only one raven in their life, which happens to be white, are tiny. However, this is not the same as impossible and that possibility must never be ignored. This is why all experiments are rigorously validated and reviewed before gaining widespread acceptance, to minimize the effects of the Raven Paradox.
For example, Newton’s laws were accepted as truth until Einstein’s theories blew them out of the water. In turn, General Relativity is not the answer to fundamental physics and has been superseded by other theories.
This is how science evolves, by challenging and adapting established paradigms and laws. The creation of Chaos Theory was a perfect example of ‘maverick’ scientists chipping away at the established laws until the theory could no longer be ignored. It eventually burst into the public consciousness and fractal models appeared as prints on T-Shirts.
Hempel’s Raven Paradox stands to remind us all that no theory, however established, should be immune to challenge or debate. As new evidence is uncovered, science must adapt and change to assimilate the new data.
- www.experiment-resources.com
View the original article and find other scientific resources. - Science and Religion - The Ethical Dilemma
The modern media depicts a yawning chasm between science and religion, an insurmountable gap that can never be crossed. Historically, such differences never existed, and both worked together for the common good. From the time of the Ancient Greeks th - Science, Religion and Philosophy - What Do They Tell Us About Life?
In answering this question, I am assuming that you are asking: What are science and religion trying to tell us about Life, the Universe and everything. To answer this, I will have to wander off on a tangent,... - The Grave of Black Sambo Lancaster and the Legacy of Slavery
Full sixty years the angry winter's wave Has thundering dashed this bleak and barren shore Since Sambo's head laid in this lonely grave Lies still and ne'er will hear their turmoil more. ...
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (1)
- Funny
- Awesome (1)
- Beautiful (1)
- Interesting (1)
CommentsLoading...
Thanks CWB - science is not perfect, but there are 'checks and balances' to try and keep things accurate.
The main problem is when it becomes a political football, as with Global Warming. The internet is a wonderful resource - the downside is that it allows bad science to masquerade as truth!
Im not a big fan of organized science hehe, like organized religion, it is falliable. After reading your hub the words improbable and impossible just started swimming in my head. I guess the world would be so much better if it can recognize the fine line that separates the two. Great hub!
Agreed, buddygallagher.
Although Christian, I have never been the biggest fan of religious dogma. Science is the same, and often becomes so embroiled in the details that the whole picture is lost
very good hub from a expert
This is proably the best consise treatment of the inherant strengths and inherant weaknesses of the scientific method that I've seen.
Well done!
Thanks for stopping by, BDazzler. Thanks for the compliments also - always appreciated :)
There is nothing wrong with the scientific method, only that people make incorrect assumptions and assume that it is 'truth.'
AAAHHH, as my 6th grade art teacher taught us, "To assume makes.....", you know the rest. Great hub:)
Thanks for visiting Miss Jamie - art teachers are always interesting!
Love the new avatar ;)
I think that you don't understand a hypothesis sir. A hypothesis is not an absolute definitive in-and-of-itself. The reasoning that "all ravens are black" is not a contradiction in logic; it is a statement of experienced observation as the person views it as "concrete". When a person uses the term "all" they are categorically not stating that this "thing" is an axiomatic absolute reality, they are saying that it is so "real" to them that it must be "reality." And what is reality accept that which is definitively actual? That is what "all" really means.What researcher would really say that "all" is absolutely everything that is? If you broke down the semantics of language to them, I'm not sure of any "scientist" that would affirm that "all" is axiomatically everything that is. Additionally, to use the term "all" is a fundamental paradox of human experience in particular; in other words, there is no human being -singularly- that can experience all of anything. The fact that the word exists at "all" says something about the culture in which it exists. In which sense, the "scientific method" is itself a statement of "cultural" arrogance.
This brings into question whether "science" is truly "empirical" as in "universal" (catholic)which science always attempts to say that it is. All observations are tainted by the human "disposition" of the observer. And language is a tell-tell sign that whatever disposition that a person posesses will "all-ways" be prevalent in their "understandings."
it is pretty germane that no-one can experience "all" of anything. Your argument really doesn't disprove the "scientific method" particularly through the pardox, inasmuch as it disproves human experience as absolutely inclusive of everything.
And lastly, you say that "science must change and adapt;" no, no, no - it is people who must express exactly what they have been doing as human beings. Science simply cannot exist without the human person. Take care.
Hi Tien Kal - Thanks for the long comment.
I do know what a hypothesis is - as well as possessing a science degree, I also write for a scientific resource site.
http://www.experiment-resources.com/research-hypot
I think that you missed the point of the Hub, as a treatise upon Hempel's critique of the scientific method and the process of induction. There was no attempt to disprove the scientific method - if you read the last few paragraphs, you will find that I stated that it is no more than a useful philosophical exercise, so I am not sure what point you are trying to make. It is not my argument - Hempel takes the credit for that!
I read your profile and see that you have some interesting takes on the human condition and experience. However, you are reading far too much into this Hub - most of your comment is largely irrelevant to the subject matter. Interesting thoughts, though :)
My bad, you know what, I didn't read it thoroughly enough. Please excuse my tone and inconcise language; I was a little hurried when I commented on what you presented. And, I guess you can say that my comments were "irrelevent" in the strictest sense of your topic - that would be fair. However, what I tried to say is that everything that the topic covers is germane to human experience and pretty self-evident. I was simply pointing out that I realized that you were criticizing the raven paradox by showing that reasoning (flawed reasoning)happens in spite of total comprehensive empirical observation that is all-inclusive. The thing about that is, is that this is the very reason generalization occurs. Meaning, a generalization is precisely what a person is trying to do; not concretely through observation that is comprehensive but abtractly through reasoning that is conceptually absolute. Generalizations in science are merely a reflection of human cognitive limitations in misperceiving the concept "all" as an actuality which is "reasoned" to be inclusive of everything in reality. We use the word "all" - all the time; but we donot mean that categorically, but as a pure concept "all" is an absolute quantity as a total summation of every quantifiable "thing."
What I was simply saying is that it is obvious that human beings can't experience "reality" in its entirety - in its "all"; so why do human beings engage in the kind of reasoning that results in the paradox? You see Sufidreamer, generalizations exist becuase the human brain is attempting to overcome its own limitations. Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle attempted to "induct" that the "abstract form" was capable of doing exactly that. "Platonic forms" exist as concepts in science. Take the concept "infinity;" such a concept is beyond human experience but it has an existence that most people think is real because it exists as a concept at all. This is why "non-comprehensive experience" is not taken to be as such when "abstract concepts" are used to explain reality. Generalizations therefore are their own paradoxes; they exist because "all" is conceptually regarded as actual and "casually" pushed into argumentation without proof. In my synopsis, generalizations are not the problem, it is the psychology underneath the vaneer of cognition affected by profound abstracted concepts that is.A generalization is basically a pressupposition that "all" is conceptually probable without their being a corresponding actual experience.
An hypothesis needs constant retesting through investigation and discovery, that much is true. But this dynamic occurs when the concept is "discovered" as its own limitation - a limitation of experience! You see, generalizations must exist Sufidreamer because of the very nature of how abstract concept psychologically compell people to believe that there is a way of circumventing the natural limitation of actual experience. A generalization is the evidence of perceptual limitation at the very start of a hypothetical query, as such, retesting and more discovery is intrinsically concomitant to the entire process. The paradox hat exists is "illusory;" it is a paradox of language created by human beings, not of what is actually happening in reality as the human being exists in spite of what it creates. For you see paradoxes do not exist in nature.
In philosphy as a discipline in educational institutions, the "syllogistic argument" is basic to introductory philosophy. Hempels' pardox is quite remedial, and I would be hard-pressed to consider this as a scentific anomoly categorically. But I would take it to the level that it plainly suggests as "human knowlege" that is, when a scientist says in language that "this is it;" "this is the truth;" "this is my theory;" the average person will percieve what is being stated as actual by the mere fact that it exist at all. People don't bother with the intellectual nuances of what a theory ultimately represents - not in the least. What people do, is belive that the scientist "knows" what he or she is talking about; therefore a thing called "belief" happens quite automatically. Belief in anything is derived from a generalization that is presented in any way representing human "knowledge" or understanding. This is why generalizations are accepted -you see- and why its cognitive acceptance eventually forms a rigidity in one's power of rationalization.
What needs to be accounted for in science is belief or what is capable of being believed beyond experience. For you see, in fact most "theories" based on generalizations are inherently "speculations" but again, people just don't think this way - even "educated" individuals. My thing is, is if "you" really can say that what you are saying is not a complete understanding, why say it at all. The fact is, is that human beings just don't think like this. Human beings want to communicate what they "discover" - language is sorely incapable of dealing with the human tendency to concretize those "limited discoveries" and believe them as if they were actual. And no matter how general they are on the surface, psychologically, the genaralization exists as a way of reasoning because of the propensity to conceptualize the "all" and bypass actual limitations. The inductive reasoning that creates the general is very slippery, but can be explained by understanding the nature of abstracted concepts embedded in language.
Moreover, there is a component to human thought that is forced into conscious apprehension of observed phenomena; and that is, the tangibility of what is actual. Actuality as in what is real and concrete, is autonomously accepted as definitive - meaning that it is a kind of self-evidency and does not require "proof." This leads people to believe that a "definite thing" - an experienced thing, is a "whole" thing, which invariably makes a person believe that any "whole" thing is "all" that it is. most people do not speculate that the Sears tower is millions of steel bars welded together, they view it as its own "object" and whole for that reason, similarly when a person is counting a number of "things" apparently, they will naturally view its established quantity as its own whole.
2 is 2 not 1+1. If it were just 1+1, 2 could not exist as it does. In other words, people experience things as wholes naturally, it is one of the reasons 2 or 3 or 4 exists at all - they in fact have a perceived existence that are not 1's apprehended individually. Its just that simple. 2 is the symbolic and thus semantic equivalent of a generalization; 2 as its own object thing does not account for -lets say, [0.5 + 0.3 + 0.2 + 1]. You see, any one of these can be considered your "white raven." It is perceived as its own object thing - which it is, but is also 1+1. but it is easier for the mind to grasp 2 as a whole then to grasp it as parts as 1's.
This is what the paradox amounts to and why all ravens were not indicative of Hempels' genralization. What Hempel did amounts to nothing more than a misnomer of experience as it relates to the perception of the experience through the lens of concepts that define an object thing's reality as actual. Generalizations involving paradoxes in hypothetical queries that result in "theories" and "laws" are a necessary by-product of simply being human - but human in a way that is the fault of the very nature of how we "conceptualize" what we know to be actual. And, thats all I was trying to say. Am I criticizing the abstract form as concepts? You bet I am. But the "system" embodying its use and existence is so rigid, its a lot like beating a dead horse.
and finally, a "law" that is accepted as such will be naturally viewed as -well- a law. Poeple are not naturally compelled to criticize things that "seem" fixed. The very nature of a "fixed" thing is that the thing is considered rigid. Rigidity implies permanence, and permanence implies something that is concrete and "actually real." Arrogance (i.e., "I know it "all" because what "I" know and believe is real) easilly slips into this psychosomatic process, and causes more things to be devloped to legitimize its c
Hi Tien - Thanks for the reply and for the well thought out comment. The key to philosophical debate is to avoid misunderstandings at the start - that potential obstacle is long past.
I will need a little time to analyse your thoughts fully, but I have a few initial observations - broadly and tentatively, I agree with a lot of what you say.
In terms of 'all,' I think that we are in the same ballpark. I always used to avoid semantics, because I felt that 95% of the time, semantics is used incorrectly as a cheap shot in debate. However, since moving to Greece and trying to learn another language, I have realised that there is some basis. Many words in Greek cannot be directly translated into English, and vice versa - you can look up a Greek word in a dictionary and find the translation, but you miss out on the long history and lineage of the word.
An example - in English, we use the word 'Cosmos.' It tends to mean the physical universe, stars, galaxies, maybe dark matter. To a Greek, Kosmos cam mean 'world,' but it can mean so much more, basically everything in existence, universe, philosophers, Gods and abstracts. Same word, but different meanings. English uses the word physics, and it is very tightly defined. To a Greek, physika means 'natural,' subtly different.
We all generalize a little - a Greek might ask me 'What do English people have for breakfast?" I answer cereal or toast. Of course, this is lazy generalisation, so I think I see what you are getting at. We all do it, but science is too often regarded as infallible. Courtrooms are a great example - 'expert scientific witnesses' are usually regarded as correct, but many jurors do not understand that any scientific process is potentially riddled with errors. I had a very good discussion with Paraglider about that - he is physics trained, and can stick to the scientific method. I studied fisheries, which relied upon instinct and experience as much as 'facts' and hypotheses. Probably the reason why I like Feyerabend's scientific anarchy!
Plato's forms - The first time I read the idea, I did not fully understand, and thought it was a little strange. A couple of days later, I sat down with a piece of olive wood and my carving tools, and it suddenly made sense. I was always told that every piece of wood already has a design inside, and a carver tries to find that and bring it out. Possibly a cultural echo of Plato. It is one of the reasons why I believe that art is equally as important as science. It deals with the abstract, and good art challenges us to think about our personal realities. It is possibly the only way that we have to communicate the abstract properly - I suspect that Dali and Blake can portray the concept of 'All' far better than any scientist or philosopher.
The human mind hates not knowing something, and I can understand why we try to find ansers rather than admit we don't know. We have some awesome storms here, in the Greek Mountains, and I can understand why the Ancient Greeks believed that it was a powerful God hurling bolts of lightning! A tendency to try and see patterns and reasons where there are none.
Anyway, I have a deadline, so this is a little rushed. I have probably skipped over some of your points and misunderstood others, so will have a more in-depth read over the weekend. More of an attempt to throw a few ideas out there and see what turns up.
Look forward to your thoughts, and I will check out your Hubs when I have a little more time :)
I think what your paradox really shows is that some statements are more amenable to validation by the scientific method than others. Indeed, this could be made quantitative.
Thanks for dropping by, Nets - your insight is always welcome! You are bang on in your observation - I had an interesting conversation with Paraglider about the scientific method. A physicist and a fisheries graduate are always going to have a different view of the scientific method!
I will have to try and dig the information out, but I believe that the psychologists have some ways of quantifying validity. That is an entire field of research in itself.
Thanks for visiting and commenting.
Strange that I hadn't seen this hub until today, when it appeared on the sidebar of one of mine. I think induction was forever destroyed by Hume, though intuitive induction is essential to life. We just mustn't adduce 'proof' from it.
I was never very impressed with the raven paradox. In a closed system with a countable number of things, every instance of a non-black non-raven might indeed be taken as reinforcement of the original proposition, by eliminating one more item from the set of untested things. But where the total set of things is effectively infinite, any such observation of a non-black non-raven has virtually no effect on the probability of the proposition being true. No serious threat to Popper here!
Good description though, and an enjoyable read.
Hi Paraglider - thanks for dropping by and adding your valuable insight.
I think that I pretty much agree with you - the Raven Parodox is, ultimately, a philosophical game. I see it more as philosophical mischief than a serious treatise, an attempt to make sure that scientists do not stray outside the demarcation and make wild claims of 'proof beyond doubt.' For me, it is more about the elegance of the idea. For example, I love the elegance and style of Leibniz but, ultimately, his ideas rely upon predestination, so I cannot take them seriously.
As for Popper - whilst I am not a strict Popperian, I think that it is more about fiddling around the edges of his philosophy than attacking it. I believe that his ideas do need to be adapted and modified, to handle modern scientific disciplines and techniques, but the core still remains as an ideal.
Personally, I think that 'the scientific method' is splitting into the 'biology method,' and the 'psychology method,' etc., but they are all built upon a Popperian framework.
Thanks for the comments - now for some more Thatcher bashing on James' Hub!
Sufi, this article reminds me of an old family joke. I'm one of 6 children (this bit is true) and we were occassionally told as children that every third person world-wide was Chinese (probably not true!) to which we would usually reply, well there's six of us, and none of us is Chinese. Statistics are a tool of manipulation in my book, but I've been interested to read in your hub and Paraglider's hub that science is more about discovering proof and determining accuracy.
Thanks for dropping by, Amanda - really glad that you enjoyed the Hub. Science certainly is much more complex than people believe, but as the evolution/creationism and Global Warming debates show, the vast majority of people do not understand even the basics.
Statistics is certainly a misunderstood field. In many fields, such as sociology, psychology and fisheries, they are a useful tool to spot correlations and trends. The problem with statistics is that they are very poor indicators of cause and effect, which is often ignored by the media.
As for opinion polls etc. - I take absolutely no notice. They are an example of how pseudoscience manipulates data to suit its own ends.
This is shameless self promotion, but we have some articles on the science site about the misuse of statistics.
http://www.experiment-resources.com/random-samplin
http://www.experiment-resources.com/correlation-an
Have a great day. :)
Sufi, I am not sure that this paradox isn't at least to some extent dependent on definition. How do you define "a raven"? If you build "black" into the definition, then the albino ravens -- no matter how many there are -- will never qualify as "true ravens."
It's very similar to the question of who is a human or what is language or are all humans people and are all people human?
How do you define a human? By the number of chromosomes? Well, then that would make Downs Syndrome children non-human. How do you define a person? By his ability to reason? Then some humans are not people. And some people are not humans.
How do you determine whether something is language? By the fact that a human is speaking it? Well, then non-humans can't have language by definition.
If you define a "raven" so that its color is not necessarily black, then scientists will have to acknowledge that even though they may never have seen an albino raven, in theory it could exist. As our knowledge of genetics improves, it might even be possible to predict under what conditions albino ravens would come into being. Without ever having seen one!
Aya - "It's very similar to the question of who is a human or what is language or are all humans people and are all people human?" - wonder why that question is in your mind? Don't worry; I'm enjoying the discussion!
Hi Aya - good to see you and I hope that you are keeping well. :)
To be honest, Aya, I am not even going to bother entering into semantic games with you. I understand that you are a linguist and seek familiar ground - a sound debating tactic - but it is not my field and I have little interest in playing the 'defining terms' game.
As I pointed out in my previous comment to Paraglider, I see the paradox as a piece of philosophical mischief and treat it as such. It raises some interesting questions and warns of the danger of making sweeping generalisations, but it was meant as a way of stimulating debate rather than seriously attacking Popper and the scientific method.
Therefore, I have little interest in over-analysing it or taking the discussion to an area outside the scope of the Hub. I have been following the debate on Paraglider's Hub, and I would appreciate it if you kept that particular debate there - if I wish to join in, I will do so!
Like Paraglider, I am enjoying that particular discussion :)
Paraglider - Seconds away, round two :D
Sufi, okay. No problem.
Hempel’s Raven Paradox stands to remind us only that debate may be made from anything. The truth, however, stands alone. That is, alone outside of us theory users.
I also note the lack of any thought that a researcher could not be any researcher, anywhere, one of any number perhaps in their hundreds such as twitchers. That is talk with one another, a strange and dying art form.
regards allan
I agree much of what say. We live in an ever changing world so infinite nothing can ever be fully proved or fully falsified. Excellent hub thank you!
Some absolutley facisinating information here, and I agree with you when you aregue that nothing thesedays can be completely proven or disproven.
Awesome article! - Voted up!
My good friend, a great hub! The Scientific Method, (TSM), like all observation-based methods, is an idea that must be open to change, which I believe it is. The idea as first proposed has been adjusted and added to, sometimes subtracted from, as our understand and ability to observe in a more or less unbiased manner, if indeed we can do so, evolves.
There are indeed some things which this method can not speak to, such as, was Napoleon a real person? Was there a Shakespeare? We believe these people existed, but can't prove it by TSM. Just as the Raven idea is plausible, it may not be an area which TSM covers. TSM also rarely goes to declare that something is either proven or "right." It does say this is the most reasonable idea with the understanding we have right now.
AS I said - excellent hub!
Cheers!
Chef Jeff
Why torment the Mind, and Soul with these games... Whats the harm in Believing, simply ...that God Is, our Creator ... Why follow the path of Thesis, Anti-Thesis, thus, Synthesis... then Synthesis once again becoming the Thesis ... ad infinitum ?
Science and Philosophy, would have been the world's Religion ... if these had the Answer to our Fundamental Questions.
For Humans do not Trust Paradoxes ... and Paradoxes are at the Foundation of all Philosophical, Theoretical and Empirical actions and thinkigs.
A good scientist, rather than saying "all ravens are black" would observe as large a sample as they could and then calculate a confidence level.
Then, s/he would say "based on our observations, the probability of observing a non-black raven is less than xx.x%"
(sorry for the pedantics, couldn't help it.)
It never ceases to amaze me how philosophy underlies just about everything. The induction fallacy is a great reminder that scientific theories should always be tried and challenged. Great article!
ColdWarBaby 3 years ago
Really wonderful Hub.
This is why it is so rare to find "fundamentalist" scientists. Questions, investigation, checking, testing, re-testing and testing again and always looking new things to ask questions about.
I've always loved the sciences. It doesn't really matter if we can't find all the answers as long as we keep asking the questions.