Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Isaac Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

chem.tufts.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 33 posts

Re: Isaac Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#21

Post by jerf »

kijuhygf wrote: post #11
alan-crowe wrote: post #9

This doesn't tackle the issue head on. The problem that emerged in the 20th Century was a lay perspective on science that looked at the old theory of Newtonian Mechanics and compared it to the new theories of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity and saw the differences but not the similarities. Science consists of both theory and experiment. The old theory does a reasonable job of explaining the old data that came from t…

>The new theory cannot just beat the old theory on the new data, it has to beat the old theory on the old data, Erm, yes - if you come up with a new theory of gravity, it had better explain the current orbits of the planets. Suppose I have a wonderful new theory of gravity, it doesn't work for anything on earth, or anything you can measure in space - but that's ok because that's old data and doesn't count.

"The new theory cannot just beat the old theory on the new data..." (emphasis mine)

Re: Isaac Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#22

Post by olalonde »

philwelch wrote: post #16
olalonde wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume this was meant to be a clarification as opposed to a counter-argument because I totally agree with you. My point was that there is absolutely no use in knowing "metaphysical facts" as long as they don't change anything about our knowledge of the physical universe.

Metaphysical facts are fundamentally unknowable anyway--if you could determine them through some type of experiment, they'd be physical facts. There might be some metaphysical facts you can prove by argument, but I doubt it. You could even argue that metaphysical statements are meaningless, though you run into problems going too far that way as well.

@philwelch: I quoted you here http://syskall.com/why-we-should-eradicate-agnosticism-from-..., hope you don't mind. I tried contacting you by e-mail but it didn't work.

Re: Isaac Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#24

Post by Confusion »

jerf wrote: post #20
Confusion wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A common example with such people is how Newton's theory was "wrong" and Einstein's theory "corrected" it, clearly showing there's no absolute truth. An example that's so wrong that it's not even wrong. Newton's theory wasn't wrong, because it's a theory that describes observed reality pretty well, which is the main criterion for a proper scientific theory. Einstein's theory isn't an approximation to, or correction o…

"Completely apart from that, there is no absolute truth. Nietzsche and Wittgenstein destroyed what remained of that possibility." O, well, that's that then.

Yes, that's pretty much that. It's strange how few people seem to understand and accept that.

If you're going to argue P == NP, you have to know damned well what you are talking about, because all the evidence suggests P != NP. You also have to accept some pretty strange consequences of your argument.

If you are going to argue the universe can be described by local theories, you have to know damned well what you are talking about, because all the evidence suggests the universe is non-local. You also have to accept some pretty strange consequences of your argument.

If you are going to argue there is an absolute truth, you have to know damned well what you are talking about, because all the knowledge we have suggests that the concept in itself doesn't even make sense. You also have to accept some pretty strange consequences of your argument.

For most people, arguing there is an absolute truth, is like arguing you can make Houdini-like escapes. You can't and you'd drown. You know that, so you accept the consequence: you don't try an Houdini-like escape. In exactly the same way, people shouldn't try to argue there is absolute truth: it only leads to more confusion about truth and reality.

Re: Isaac Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#25

Post by yters »

Jun8 wrote: post #7

This is a truly brilliant essay on the scientific method, clearly showing why Asimov was regarded as one of the best writers popularized and explained scientific concepts. His "Please Explain" should be required reading. However, I think he has misclassified the error of the English Lit correspondent in this essay. Since I have witnessed this misunderstanding many times (and I want to postpone writing my C++ thread p…

Scientists conclude that physicalism is true (i.e. reality consists only of physical entities). From this, lit people conclude that relativism is true.

The argument is pretty straightforward: if only physical entities exist then there cannot be any truth that is true in all times and places, since such an overarching truth is universal and not particular, whereas all physical entities are only particular.

Hence the irony of modern scientists arguing for absolute truth with those who merely follow the scientists' assumptions to the logical end.

Re: Isaac Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#26

Post by netcan »

jamesbritt wrote: post #12
Jun8 wrote: post #7

This is a truly brilliant essay on the scientific method, clearly showing why Asimov was regarded as one of the best writers popularized and explained scientific concepts. His "Please Explain" should be required reading. However, I think he has misclassified the error of the English Lit correspondent in this essay. Since I have witnessed this misunderstanding many times (and I want to postpone writing my C++ thread p…

" If you don't believe me, just find a liberal arts major and talk for 10mins. He/she will be dumbstruck that you think otherwise. A common example with such people is how Newton's theory was "wrong" and Einstein's theory "corrected" it, clearly showing there's no absolute truth." What I've often seen is a sort of "convenient relativism" about truth. I've known people who, for some things, claim there's no real truth…

Behind this is a whole world of subtle (and less subtle) fallacies.

For example, uncertainty does not mean all options are equally likely. I'm not sure if this has a name. Agnostic fallacy?

Re: Isaac Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#27

Post by rue »

Confusion wrote: post #24
jerf wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Completely apart from that, there is no absolute truth. Nietzsche and Wittgenstein destroyed what remained of that possibility." O, well, that's that then.

Yes, that's pretty much that. It's strange how few people seem to understand and accept that. If you're going to argue P == NP, you have to know damned well what you are talking about, because all the evidence suggests P != NP. You also have to accept some pretty strange consequences of your argument. If you are going to argue the universe can be described by local theories, you have to know damned well what you are…

Perhaps you should define what you mean by "absolute truth," because to me it seems you are arguing against either universal truths or possibly specifically considering "a truth" to be a statement made by some observer, rather than an actual state or condition?

Re: Isaac Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#28

Post by shrikant »

Jun8 wrote: post #7

This is a truly brilliant essay on the scientific method, clearly showing why Asimov was regarded as one of the best writers popularized and explained scientific concepts. His "Please Explain" should be required reading. However, I think he has misclassified the error of the English Lit correspondent in this essay. Since I have witnessed this misunderstanding many times (and I want to postpone writing my C++ thread p…

A common example with such people is how Newton's theory was "wrong" and Einstein's theory "corrected" it, clearly showing there's no absolute truth.

Mild epiphany on reading these (and surrounding) words: In the scientific method, there are truths, and truer truths.

Re: Isaac Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#29

Post by phenwoods »

Confusion wrote: post #19
Jun8 wrote: post #7

This is a truly brilliant essay on the scientific method, clearly showing why Asimov was regarded as one of the best writers popularized and explained scientific concepts. His "Please Explain" should be required reading. However, I think he has misclassified the error of the English Lit correspondent in this essay. Since I have witnessed this misunderstanding many times (and I want to postpone writing my C++ thread p…

A common example with such people is how Newton's theory was "wrong" and Einstein's theory "corrected" it, clearly showing there's no absolute truth. An example that's so wrong that it's not even wrong. Newton's theory wasn't wrong, because it's a theory that describes observed reality pretty well, which is the main criterion for a proper scientific theory. Einstein's theory isn't an approximation to, or correction o…

"Completely apart from that, there is no absolute truth. Nietzsche and Wittgenstein destroyed what remained of that possibility."

How is the statement "there is no absolute truth", not itself an absolute truth?

Re: Isaac Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#30

Post by ovi256 »

shrikant wrote: post #28
Jun8 wrote: post #7

This is a truly brilliant essay on the scientific method, clearly showing why Asimov was regarded as one of the best writers popularized and explained scientific concepts. His "Please Explain" should be required reading. However, I think he has misclassified the error of the English Lit correspondent in this essay. Since I have witnessed this misunderstanding many times (and I want to postpone writing my C++ thread p…

A common example with such people is how Newton's theory was "wrong" and Einstein's theory "corrected" it, clearly showing there's no absolute truth. Mild epiphany on reading these (and surrounding) words: In the scientific method, there are truths, and truer truths.

No! Truth is absolute, wrong is relative. Asimov gives it away in the title. There are wrongs, and more wrong wrongs. We simply refine our knowledge to be less wrong and (maybe asymptotically) approach the truth.
Post reply on HN