Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

by shubhamjain • 11 years ago

125 138 11 years ago

chem.tufts.edu

aout3• 11 years ago

Surely everybody knows an "English Lit expert" but even after reading this exquisite requiem to believers I still find it impossibly hard to argue with these people. It always feels like they are trying to make the last stand of humanitarian values against the dictat of science.

In all their glorious "everything science says will be as wrong as religion and you my friend are blindly following it" it seems they can't understand the basic principle of science advancing toward some kind of truth yet admitting it is -still- wrong.

I don't know if trying to convince someone who doesn't trust science - and to some extent, logical thinking - with mathematics really works. Sure it convinces me but does it matter?

mdpopescu4• 11 years ago

I'm one of the people you're caricaturing here. I understand science, and mathematics, and logical thinking, which is why I believe (most) people blindly follow science as if it were a religion. (For a very recent example, see this article - io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800 )

See also Scott Adams' musings on the subject: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/109880240641/sciences-biggest-f...

carapat_virulat• 11 years ago

Yes, it's not 1989 anymore, people shouldn't have to rely on soap opera caricatures to learn what English literature experts think, how smug they are and how they are the natural enemies of physicists and scientists somehow. I am not saying people like that doesn't exist, but I don't think either that the Liberal Studies are trying to fight any kind of war with science.

The funny thing is Isaac Asimov and most of the science fiction writers have their books filled with traditional philosophical problems and literary figures, they just sugar-coat them with enough speculative science and avoid naming the concepts by name to avoid scaring their public.

The article linked is great, but let's not use it to reinforce senseless clichés.

aout3• 11 years ago

I read your articles and could add one myself but fail to find it : a published scientific paper about how smoking is good for your health because it makes you think about your health at some point (basically saying "don't trust everything science says"). I also agree with you that (most) people blindly following science but I don't feel like you are the kind of person I'm caricaturing (which is true for the sake of my description).

You seem to grasp the concept of critical thinking and I believe that's why you would object. To me talking about science implies critical thinking. Somebody having an argument with you about science without acknowledging the certainty of being wrong is not talking about science but pseudo-science. And so you end up discussing with a fanatic, which is not a discussion.

I'm not saying that English Lit experts are everywhere but I feel like they just do not trust "science lovers" to be capable of critical thinking.

edit: It's like you're asking "how to convince science fanatics that they can be wrong" and I'm asking "how to convince English Lit experts that I know science can be wrong but still think it matters"

cholantesh• 11 years ago

Seems like Adams' thesis is that science is to blame for media's rampant misreporting of it. That's a really odd thing to suggest given that scientists express consternation about this on a regular basis, and devote much time and effort into trying to clear up common misconceptions that arise because of irresponsible pop media reportage.

olavk• 11 years ago

Scott Adams seems to want science to be like religion, and is disappointed that it isn't.

hansihe• 11 years ago

Steven Novella wrote a bit of a rebuttal to this article: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/scott-adams-on-...

mdpopescu4• 11 years ago

... and, of course, the rebuttals to this were mostly of the "no true Scotsman" flavor. "It's not the fault of scientists, it's the bad media". Let's ignore http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/ (Why Most Published Research Findings Are False) and many other similar results - we have to defend scientists because!

Look - I'm an engineer. I use a sort-of Bayesian reasoning: I started from what I learned as a child and then kept adjusting probabilities. You (plural "you") wouldn't be surprised if I told you I believe most politicians are liars. Well, I got to "most scientists are wrong" the same way. Sure, I didn't actually talk to most scientists, or even heard about them; those I did hear about, though, are at best misguided.

In any case, my original argument wasn't about the scientists; my argument was: most people treat science as a religion. They feel very superior to the religious people who are accepting everything they are told uncritically and then turn around and accept everything that is prefixed with "science says". Ten years ago, I used to make fun of people for believing the Earth revolves around the Sun - I have yet to find a single one who could do better than "that's what scientists say". That is arguably worse than those who accepted the Ptolemaic model - for one thing, they could at least see that the Sun was rising and setting.

(I can rant on this subject for hours but I don't think this is the proper forum.)

Alex3917• 11 years ago

It always feels like they are trying to make the last stand of humanitarian values against the dictat of science.

Except for that in reality the legitimacy of science becomes more and more tenuous with each passing year. In the past 40+ years there have been few if any major advances in the scientific process that have seen wide adoption, despite the innumerable problems that have come to light. And not only have there been no major improvements, but things have actually gotten significantly worse thanks to the corporatization and gamification of academia, the increasing use of proprietary technologies and source code, etc.

aout3• 11 years ago

True, but humanitarian values do not need a last stand. So how do you discuss with someone being this radical with reasonable arguments? I don't feel like "you can't" is an answer :/

voronoff3• 11 years ago

Computerized statistics and online journals/digitized libraries are ENORMOUS advancements in the scientific process.

cinquemb6• 11 years ago

Why does one have to trust science, or what we think of the scientific process today? Does science enable us to do things in the "reality" that one and others may perceive than without it? I'd think yes. Is the way we go about it now, forever the most optimal for constructing such things? Probably not, but humans are probably closer to a local maxima constrained by all the things that make the process inefficient now… which to be fair, I don't think is limited to science but how we are as humans.

JackFr8• 11 years ago

The issue is that many people trying to convince me about science are woefully unaware of their own assumptions and are typically ignorant of some basic philosophy.

In particular, I accept that the scientific method is a reliable path to knowledge, that is, it reliably leads to a true understanding of true things. However it does not follow that the scientific method is the only way to knowledge. It also does not follow that all true knowledge, or even a fraction of it can be acquired through the scientific method.

Other unvoiced assumptions speak to one's life's purpose. The old quote from Emil Faber, 'Knowledge is good', is certainly not a scientific conclusion, or a testable hypothesis. Valuing wisdom over ignorance and indeed freedom over slavery and life over death speaks to a purpose in life which is necessarily ungrounded in any science. I certainly do value all of those things, but it is not a belief anyone achieved through falsifiable hypotheses.

JoeAltmaier12• 11 years ago

I hear this a lot: morality is above science. I don't believe it for a moment. Just look at those that believe in ignorance over wisdom, or death over life - they do very, very badly. Empirically these moral codes are useful and effective. That's science right there.

nitrogen11• 11 years ago

However it does not follow that the scientific method is the only way to knowledge. It also does not follow that all true knowledge, or even a fraction of it can be acquired through the scientific method.

We would have to agree on the definition of "true knowledge" to come to a complete understanding of each other's positions, but I'll take a stab at justifying my opinion that science is the only possible source for all "true knowledge". I'll define "true" as empirically tested and repeatable by others, and "knowledge" as statements about something tangible (e.g. brains), or about intangible concepts embodied within tangible things (e.g. brains thinking about ideas).

One needn't fully accept these definitions for the argument to hold, if one accepts that personal experience is a source of personal knowledge. Basically, if we consider all the claimed sources of knowledge, and consider which "way" of knowing applies in the most places, gains the most new knowledge over time, and has the best track record for producing societal advancements of knowledge and technology, the only "way of knowing" left standing is science.

You also mention "life purpose" and "knowledge is good" as counterevidence to science. But scientifically speaking, there is no objective purpose or objective good. There is only natural selection favoring the evolution of a desire for knowledge. That desire can be studied scientifically via neurology and related disciplines.

andyidsinga4• 11 years ago

it does not follow that the scientific method is the only way to knowledge

there's something to that. It seems to me its partially because we often make "doing science" a mental / virtual exercise. A process that is done with data and in the realm of one's head.

But doing science should includes all of our senses.

The idea of gemba comes to mind ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemba ): > The idea is that to be customer-driven, one must go to the customer's genba to understand his problems and opportunities, using all one's senses to gather and process data.

calinet64• 11 years ago

This is why the liberal arts are, in fact, so critically important. It's difficult to understand the beauty of knowledge and science without also understanding it's humanity, and conversely, it's difficult to fully understand humanities without also understanding knowledge, how we know things, and the profound reality of the world around us.

Furthermore, a scientist well versed in the humanities almost to the point of spirituality will have a much easier time translating knowledge between the logical and the human. Both are intertwined, and both contain mountains of truth, and each is made better by the other.

Loren Eiseley was one such scientist.

Some good writings of his can be found here: http://www.american-buddha.com/eiseley.toc.htm

BenoitEssiambre• 11 years ago

Also see: "A Technical Explanation of Technical Explanation": http://www.yudkowsky.net/rational/technical/

peter303• 11 years ago

Asimov was ver clever and entertaining. But he was very arrogant to and would never admit someone might have a better idea than him.

gambler• 11 years ago

It's not arrogance, it's authority. Just because someone might have a better idea than you does not mean you have to agree with people spewing stupidities. Especially when the said people didn't even bother coming up with their own stupidities (which warrants at least a modicum of respect).

wglb• 11 years ago

Perhaps you might re-read the first paragraph which ends with but I am very aware of the vast state of my ignorance and I am prepared to learn as much as I can from anyone, so I read on.

hyperpape2• 11 years ago

This is a nicely written statement of one of the basic points/counterpoints in the philosophy of science and scientific realism. If you want to read more, you can probably find more by chasing citations from this Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/#PesInd.

jleyank4• 11 years ago

Nature "is".

Science is an attempt to explain why Nature is the way it is. Collect data, make a prediction, test it, revise the prediction, rinse, repeat. Granted, there are belief systems aplenty in scientific work (string theory?) but as Kuhn has written, sometimes Nature laughs and forces a change.

And Asimov's "level of error" discussion is valid. Newtonian physics, while "wrong" is perfectly useful when aiming spacecraft away from the sun. Box: "All models are wrong. Some models are useful". And Feynman's talked about this as well.

ThrustVectoring6• 11 years ago

"The map is not the territory" is a concise way to phrase the idea you're pointing at.

andyidsinga4• 11 years ago

I loved loved loved the part about the curvature per mile.

Last weekend I was cutting the top of a door on a diagonal that had to match the sloped roof-line of a new doorway I'm putting in on my second floor.

When I calculated the slope, I incorrectly rounded up to too few decimal points ..such that over the length of the door (~ 31 inches) the error caused the slope to be off about 1/2 inch -- which, had I cut the door, would have looked horrible.

This problem really perplexed me (because I'm an idiot!) ...until I saw the answer staring me right in the face on my calculator - the many values to the right of the decimal. Of course, leaving those there fixed the issue, and I got a nice accurate slope over the width of the door :)

foldr18• 11 years ago

This is amusing, but the key terms in Asimov's argument are ambiguous, and he's taking a very selective look at the history of science. The position that science edges gradually towards theories that are "more right" (or "less wrong") is roughly correct in the sense that science tends to be empirically conservative. That is, when scientists replace theory A with theory B, it's generally the case that theory B accounts for most or all of the data that theory A accounted for. However, if we look at the actual content of scientific theories, it's clear that radical change and total reversal are quite common. E.g., the germ theory of disease and the theory of continental drift bear little resemblance to their predecessors; Rutherford's model of the atom is not a minor revision of the "plum pudding model"; a relative space-time is very nearly the opposite of an absolute space and time; and the thesis that the universe has a beginning in time is the negation of the thesis that it does not. The last example is probably the best one. At various times, the scientific consensus has been clearly for or against steady state models. So we know that the scientific consensus on that issue has simply been flat out wrong at one time or another.

Of course, there are many areas where we do expect progress to be conservative. So for example, we are not going to discover that DNA does not actually exist, or that the Earth is larger than the Sun. But on some issues it is reasonable to assume that the scientific consensus is quite likely to undergo radical revision. As Scott Adams points out in an article that someone else linked to here, the science of diet and exercise is a case in point.

So to my mind, it all depends on the particular issues that Asimov's lazy caricature had in mind. If the "Eng Lit major" was expressing skepticism about, say, the age of the Earth, or the atomic theory of matter, then Asimov's response would be a fair one. If they had something else in mind, then perhaps not.

andyidsinga4• 11 years ago

It seems as though asimov agrees with you in the last paragraph:

Naturally, the theories we now have might be considered wrong in the simplistic sense of my English Lit correspondent, but in a much truer and subtler sense, they need only be considered incomplete.

foldr18• 11 years ago

That seems false as applied to most of my examples. If the Big Bang theory turns out to be true, then that doesn't mean that steady state theories were "incomplete", it just means that they were wrong. Similarly, if it turns out that eating lots of fat doesn't make you fat, that doesn't mean that previous dietary advice was merely "incomplete".

coldtea4• 11 years ago

As Scott Adams points out in an article that someone else linked to here, the science of diet and exercise is a case in point.

That's because most of it in the form it reaches people is not actually a "science", but mostly pop culture and BS from mass media.

foldr18• 11 years ago

That's true, but it's also true that the actual scientific consensus has changed a lot over time. You can't blame this all on the media and pretend that dietary advice from experts has been fully consistent for the past 50 years.

TheOtherHobbes• 11 years ago

That's because most of it in the form it reaches people is not actually a "science"

...because it's really just "a word from our sponsors".

It uses the language and status of science for marketing and persuasion, without providing any of the rigour or repeatability.

Unfortunately this poisons the well for real science, because non-scientists decide that scientists don't really know anything useful and it's all just a matter of opinion anyway.

justifier4• 11 years ago

this is one of my greatest gripes with academics

pedantry directed ridicule

this same essay could have been written exactly as is but with the tone of 'you are so right, here are some examples' but instead he chose to try to make a fan feel like an asshole..

this is my biggest problem with degrasse tyson.. he goes out of his way to make himself a public figure in science but uses the information he has accumulated to make people think they know so much less than he

a perfect example was when he visited the daily show, twice, and complained, jokingly, that the earth was spinning backward in the opening graphic

that graphic was made by some artist and now tyson is using his acquired information to ridicule the individual's effort

if you are knowledgeable then use that knowledge to lift people up

how can we have a graphic of the earth spinning backwards?

perhaps the camera has a capture rate that makes the earth appear to spin backwards, like car tires in films..

or maybe you could talk about geosynchronous orbit and angular momentum and really make people think you know more than them all the while lending excuse for why the earth is spinning backwards..

isaac, you got called out on some stupid thing you said out of a myriad of other entertaining things you have said, have some grace.. or at least a sense of humour

andyidsinga4• 11 years ago

hmmm - re asimov: he received a letter from a fan severely lecturing him on a subject. He appears to have read it thoughtfully and then responded in kind - severely, but fairly thoughtfully and with detail.

When I send someone a pithy email/comment on a subject and they respond like asimov did -- its pretty cool to me, even though to an observer it may appear somewhat dickish.

justifier4• 11 years ago

yeah i lamented the lack of the actual letter

i recognise the strengths in being able to determine if the kid 'had it coming' but still isaac was in the position of power here, and to me it reads like he was embarrassed to be called out by someone he feels unworthy of correcting him

5F36B5F62640• 11 years ago

The lack of capitalization and most punctuation makes that jarring to read, which is why I downvoted you from my normal account. (Commenting to let you know why using a throwaway because I believe that if one both replies and downvotes the downvote is removed.)

justifier4• 11 years ago

sorry.. its how i write

i've developed the style over time, i think it somehow informed from growing up behind a glowing screen

myself, i find i read single sentences quicker than walls of text and just prefer the equanimity of lowercase

again, i apologise.. i suppose some may call it 'crabbed penmanship'

justifier4• 11 years ago

'academics' is an abysmal choice of words, alas.. hn locks the state of statements

the base generalisation was a direct analogue to isacc's referenced educational hierarchy:

    I knew very few English Lit majors who are equipped to teach me science

i have known great members of academia, i suppose i would replace the word with 'exclusionary pedants'

undertow• 11 years ago

  It is only because the difference between the 
  rate of change in a static universe and the 
  rate of change in an evolutionary one is that 
  between zero and very nearly zero that the 
  creationists can continue propagating their 
  folly.

Well, there's still another part sneaking past the fact that biological differentiation occurs at geological time scales: We haven't been around long enough to witness and record an actual "smoking gun" event, that clearly demonstrates the emergence of a completely new plant or animal.

We're aware of things like the three-toed horse, and we know they used to exist. But that's just a small difference on an animal that still exists, and other than that whole thing with the toes, it's still pretty much the same thing. We've seen lots of animals disappear, but nothing replacing them.

Maybe insects are a ripe branch of animals that will bear some fruit, since their life cycles are so short, but otherwise, for the most part, modern theory points out that not only will none of us see a new, radically different class of creatures emerge within our own lifetimes, but not even within the projected limits of our modern civilizations and their effective capacity to record history will we be likely to observe such an event.

So, neither since the start of our recorded history, nor until after the history we do manage to record starts to disappear beyond the possibility of rediscoverable recognition by the next order of civilization which may arrise, shall a truly different creature spring forth from the free-for-all of biological propagation.

In other words, we've never actually experienced a period where a certain life form did not exist and then emerged from some other thing, and we'll probably never get a chance to see such a thing happen, not in 5 million years, and even if we do spot a new previously undiscovered animal, and it turns out to be an example of the emergence of a new and distinctly different animal, even if it makes it into the history books, and the animal is hardy enough to persist in nature, our history books won't last forever, and after we're gone, the next civilized culture (human or oherwise) might not find them, and learn to read them before they disintegrate into unrecognizable ash and dust. But we know it's there. We're sure evolution isn't just a theory.

And so too, are we faced with a scenario, whereby even if hypothetical civilized lizard people of the dinosaur era had been there to witness a new class of rodents spring forth, the records of their culture that we do find might not include that one passage. And so too, with civilized trilobite scholars, if they were there to see the original sharks and amphibians emerge, and wrote it down, we'd probably never find that chapter in the trilobite bible where they realized what they had just seen.

That's a tough idea to pitch to people, and in casual conversations at dinner parties, it's devestatingly easy to stymie people who try to explain it.

voronoff3• 11 years ago

Another attempt to explain this: https://medium.com/@maradydd/the-null-hypothesis-loves-you-a...

mdpopescu4• 11 years ago

Here's another relatively recent example:

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/fake-wonder-cream-ex...

Note that these were scientific studies, made by scientific labs. This is not the media misreporting.

Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

Related Stories