A scientist places an object into the hand of a philosopher. He tells the philosopher that after many hours, days and weeks of laboratory testing, examination and evaluation, he has concluded that this object is a "stone" and cannot possibly be anything else. The philosopher accepts the stone and takes it back to his place of solitude. He sits holding the object. "A stone huh? and nothing else?", he says to himself. "There has to be more to it than that", he says as he reaches for his chisel. Curious to know what other truths, if any, this object may have to reveal, he chisels away at it. After hours, days and weeks of chiseling, he is left with a pile of dust. He says to himself, "A stone huh? and nothing else? It now looks like a pile of dust to me." The philosopher collects up the dust, places it into the hand of the scientist and declares; "I thought you said this was a "stone" and could not possibly be anything else?"
Before the scientist will accept what the philosopher has just shown him to be fact, he will demand that the philosopher "prove" to him, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the pile of dust he now holds in his hand is the exact same stone he placed in the philosopher's hand weeks before. How frustrating this must be to the philosopher, who already knows the truth?
If they are both right, how can they solve this argument? I need an answer.