The TV game show Jeopardy would not exist without answers.  The premise of the show is for contestants to be told the answer and provide the question to win points.

The contestant who accumulates the most points wins.  If you guess the wrong question you lose points.  The show is a microcosm of real life.

One to One Relationship

In the world of questions and answers the show highlights the truism “ There cannot be an answer without a question”.  This is microcosmic in the sense that it focuses only on a small part of the question and answer environment.

In particular there can be questions without answers or maybe better stated as without definitive answers.  For clarity there may be an answer proposed but it is neither proven nor accepted as universally correct.

Also some questions might have multiple correct answers while Jeopardy relies on questions which have a unique unilaterally accepted universal answer.  Without this the game would descend into chaos.

The Mysterious Symbiotic Relationship

Which comes first the question or the answer?  On Jeopardy it is the answer but this only works because the question is known.  Is it reasonable to think we could propose answers from which we derive the question which here-to-fore is unknown.

It raises the question, to what purpose?  Would starting with the answer and seeking to uncover the question actually motivate and propel research such that it would be more efficient?

I consider this an interesting theory but so far have been unable to find examples of its use.  I wonder if that means it’s not a viable approach or just that no one has really considered it because it appears backwards.

The answer is “More thought is required”, but what is the question?