Say cheese

A man sees two elephants in the wild.

Image result for elephants

He takes a picture with his camera

The picture is now on a negative in his camera

He develops the image.

You can see his elephants.

 

Question: ย At what point would you believe that this man saw the elephants?

Why?

 

This may appear as a harmless and simple question, but the answers and ramifications are not so simple, and reveal more about us than we may imagine.

Advertisements

About ColorStorm

Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture.
Gallery | This entry was posted in Homespun and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to Say cheese

  1. Wally Fry says:

    Hmmmm…..the product of what he saw…I say that would be evidence. Combine that with faith in the truth told by the photographer. ..no prob here believing he saw the elephant.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. atimetoshare says:

    Is this a trick question? I say the photographer saw the elephant first which inspired him to take the picture.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. archaeopteryx1 says:

    …its the answers that are tricky” – and, I would strongly suspect – cheesy —

    Like

  4. thetruthisstrangerthanfiction says:

    I’m not convinced the whole photo analogy here really works to develop whatever idea you’re trying to develop here. It’s a fairly easy metaphor to dismantle, in that, all you could say for sure is that someone saw the elephants. How do you know someone else didn’t snap the pic using his camera? Guess I just don’t see the epistemological wow factor buried in there….

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      In all fairness truth, how could you be convinced if you don’t know what I am getting at?

      But your observations about a ‘wow’ factor may be premature.

      Its actually simple. You get extra points for ‘buried,’ though.

      Like

      • thetruthisstrangerthanfiction says:

        ok I admit, “wow factor” was a tad on the snarky side. But yes, it’s clearly designed to be some sort of how-do-we-know-what-we-know thought exercise. A head scratcher as to the reliability of personal testimony? A reflection upon the definition of “evidence”… All good questions of course.

        But still, is the metaphor really complete? Does a photograph of something tell me anything except the fact that the shutter closed at some point and captured an image? (Could it have been on a timer? Could someone have borrowed the camera?)

        What about if we were talking about a journal entry or something, as opposed to a photo. After all, these days photos can be faked anyhow, so do they really “prove” anything anymore…? ๐Ÿ˜‰ (forgive my devil-advocacy on this one, trying to push a different angle I suppose…)

        Liked by 1 person

  5. For me, it depends on who’s telling.
    I’d believe that my dad saw the elephants sooner than I’d believe my jokester friend did.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. I feel that yes, he saw the elephants originally, but only quickly and not REALLY SEEING the elephants as he was in a hurry to “capture” the moment. . .it was only later once the picture was developed that he too saw the elephants, but only second hand like his viewers. . .as he truly missed the first encounter. . .

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Planting Potatoes says:

    seeing a picture would be enough for me to believe he took a picture – but describing to me what they look like to him would make me believe that he really saw them.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. atimetoshare says:

    Come on, tell us the answer you’re looking for. Seems pretty straight forward to me, but then I’m pretty unintellectual.

    Like

  9. mzpresser says:

    You know as an attorney I’ve been thinking of all of these conversations lately. In the criminal justice system in the United States, most of my cases have been based on circumstantial rather than direct evidence. If the law required us to utilize direct evidence in every case, we’d have a completely broken system. Even in my forfeiture cases that I handle, they are all mostly proven circumstantially i.e. large sums of money, money in rubberbands, dog sniff, defendant has no job, has drug priors etc. The more I think of this issue of “evidence” the more I realize how insane the whole thing is. Sorry, I had to ramble a little bit but my lawyer brain went into hyper-overdrive lol. I guess during my next trial I’ll just say, “Ladies and gentleman of the jury I just give up.”

    PS heads up I did not come to argue with any atheists, just state my opinion which I get paid for daily. This one is on the house ๐Ÿ™‚

    Liked by 5 people

    • ColorStorm says:

      Ha, way to go M.-
      Good stuff, and no arguing here that I can see, thats a good thing.

      For some reason, some people are staying away; there may be a few good reasons.

      You picked up on something I never mentioned, ‘evidence,’ nice.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Wally Fry says:

      Melissa

      Wow. The implications of what you just said finally hit me. Every day we take concrete action based on sometimes very NOT concrete evidences. Send a man to prison, or let him go…we believe things without really thinking about it even with a complete lack of concrete proof. We have faith in the pilot flying the airplane we are in, or the guy in the car in the lane next to us. We just act on faith…yet for some things, the demand for ironclad proof never ends.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Wait, is this a trick cuz there’s 3 elephants in the picture? Totally over my head lol

    Liked by 2 people

  11. mzpresser says:

    Here is the dream I had last night:

    I am in front of a house with another person. I see a man run out of the house and he is on fire. I see his assailant chasing after him.The man collapses and dies right in front of me and the assailant runs into a nearby vacant house to hide. I get on the phone to call my dispatch center (we have our own in house dispatch/911 which is a critical part to this dream) and I say, “I just witnessed a homicide, send a car out immediately. This is Melissa Presser.”
    “Melissa,” the dispatcher says, ” I am not sending anyone out. How do you know what you saw is real. I am not there and don’t see it so I am not sending anyone out.”
    “John!” I yell, “I am looking at the man’s dead body. The assailant is right here over in this next house, get someone over here NOW.”
    “I’m not going to do that,” said John.
    “Then get a supervisor on the phone, ” I say.
    I wait, I wait, I wait.
    Click
    The man is dead before me. I see the assailant run away.
    I wake up.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. It might be hard to believe ColorStorm, but I am a complete skeptic. I wouldn’t believe that man saw any elephants at all. I’d need to see the photo and than I’d probably question the film, too, and suspect a double exposure. Or suspect a lying man who needs to have his eyes checked. I probably should have been a defense attorney.

    The only way to get rid of my skepticism would be to drop me on my head in the mud with a pile of elephants. That usually tends to do the trick. That has actually happened to me a few times, metaphorically of course ๐Ÿ˜‰

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Martin says:

    There were two elephants one large and one medium, which is what the photographer saw, but in the delay of taking the photo of the three . . . The large elephant rescued the small elephant from the water. In the photo you see the large elephant giving the small elephant a quick clean up. Slow, but good photographer. : )

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s