Isaac Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong (1989) • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by jamesbritt » Thu, Feb 25, 2010, 9:46 PM UTC

netcan wrote: post #26

jamesbritt wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" 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?

It reminds me of the "slippery slope" argument, which tries to equate any action in some direction with the worst possible outcome. But it's based on the idea that people cannot make reasonable distinctions along some axis. All grays are equal in their view.

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

#32

Post by Confusion » Fri, Feb 26, 2010, 11:49 AM UTC

phenwoods wrote: post #29

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

It's just an assertion of a generally acknowledged state of affairs in the world. That's the only thing the phrase 'absolute truth' could possibly mean. The only thing 'certainty' can mean.

If I proclaim any certainty regarding anything, the most certain I can possibly be is when I know that a relevant number of people has tried in a relevant number of ways to discover whether we should be uncertain. Scientific certainty does not exist, but a scientist can still say we are 'certain' about something. It just doesn't mean it's beyond any doubt. In fact, even the phrase 'beyond any doubt' cannot possibly mean something that in fact does not leave any doubt. The situation in philosophy is exactly the same. There is not a doubt on the mind of the vast majority of great philosophers that there could not possibly be any absolute truth. That the phrase itself makes as little sense as speaking of the vat in which you are supposedly a brain (essay by Hilary Putnam). That it cannot possibly mean what you think you are intending it to mean. And despite that, it may still be false. It's just that nobody can argue even remotely satisafactorily that it is.

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

#33

Post by netcan » Sun, Feb 28, 2010, 11:13 AM UTC

jamesbritt wrote: post #31

netcan wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It reminds me of the "slippery slope" argument, which tries to equate any action in some direction with the worst possible outcome. But it's based on the idea that people cannot make reasonable distinctions along some axis. All grays are equal in their view.

There is some validity to slippery slope arguments, especially in common law systems.