Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 1:08 PM UTC

JackFr wrote: post #121

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Suicide bombers see a different purpose to their lives than (presumably) you and I do. By their own measure they are not doing badly, they are doing quite well. And objectively, suicide bombers are dead, which puts them far behind those of us who remain alive -- at least, by any sensible measure. Of course, when you unravel the story behind the average suicide bomber, you usually find that they were shamed or pressu…

> at least, by any sensible measure That's pure question begging.

Post by JoeAltmaier » Thu, Jun 04, 2015, 3:41 AM UTC

spydum wrote: post #46

calinet6 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This, and most of the other arguments in the whole thread, are so highly simplistic. The links between science and humanity are many and complex, and vice versa. There is no winner, there is no right side. They build on each other, enhance each other, and neither science not the humanities has any real meaning in isolation. Really, the whole dichotomous argument between the two is absolutely ridiculous. We need fewer…

you have to wonder if there is some magnetism in people which draws them to polarizing topics (both to build polarizing arguments, and to engage in them). Maybe it's as simple as we are highly competitive, and in the absence of competition, we create rifts just so we can establish who is greater?

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 04, 2015, 7:21 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #129

foldr wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>so it's a very good approximation to treat a cup of water, for example, as a continuous fluid, rather than a bunch of atoms. It's a good approximation empirically . I've said a few times now that scientific progress is indeed quite conservative in empirical terms. However, we know now that water is very unlike a continuous fluid in terms of its actual constitution. > So "atoms are mostly empty space" is wrong, by th…

> It's a good approximation empirically. But that's the whole point: if a theory is a good approximation empirically, then how can you say it's "flat out wrong"? Doesn't that obfuscate the very important distinction between ideas that are good approximations, but not quite right, vs. ideas that aren't even good approximations? (See below for more on this.) > Is it really your view that there has never been a period i…

Post by JackFr » Sat, Jun 06, 2015, 12:03 AM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #134

JackFr wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's question begging because 'any sensible measure' is meant to exclude the subjective measure by which suicide bombers are valuing their own lives. The whole point is that their worldview -- what is important, what is to be valued during our brief time on earth, etc. -- is radically different than yours or mine. And yet the only argument I seem to get in favor of the worldview that (I believe) you and I largely sha…

Empirically, its obvious. Most people on the planet value these things. Societies are under selection pressure like organisms. So these things must be advantageous to societies. Clearer?

Post by foldr » Sun, Jun 07, 2015, 6:33 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #138

foldr wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Doesn't that obfuscate the very important distinction between ideas that are good approximations, but not quite right, vs. ideas that aren't even good approximations? No, it just adds an additional distinction between idea that are good approximations but not quite right and ideas that are good approximations but completely wrong.

> ideas that are good approximations but completely wrong. Once again, if an idea is a good approximation, how can it be "completely wrong"? That seems like a contradiction.