Isaac Asimov: some wrongs are wronger than others

One of the more ridiculous criticisms of science by religious believers is "Scientific facts often turn out to be proven wrong."

Well, in a narrow sense that's true, but American author and biochemist Isaac Asimov shows how it's also broadly false in an interesting essay, "The Relativity of Wrong."

His basic point is that there are gradations of wrongness. In response to someone who wrote him a letter praising Socrates' proposition that the wisest man knows he knows nothing, Asimov said:

My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.

Great point.

Global warming skeptics make this absurd conclusion when they nitpick details of climatology research findings, claiming that if every conclusion made by any scientist who affirms the reality of human-caused climate change isn't 100% correct, then global warming has a 0% chance of being true.

I also see this attitude reflected in comments on my blog posts by religiously-minded people.

Just like Asimov's corresondent, John, they'll point to how some scientific theory has been shown to be wrong in some respects -- which must mean that science is wrong about God, the supernatural, consciousness being separable from the brain, and such.

But Asimov reminds us:

In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the Earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after.

What actually happens is that once scientists get hold of a good concept they gradually refine and extend if with a greater and greater subtlety as their instruments of measurement improve. Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete.

Comments

[George]

yip asimov's essay is imo one of the best reposts to ppl who don't actually understand science, scientific thought and the scientific method.

Its all about relative truth, rather than absolute truth, but not that postmodern relativism flake nonsense where everyone's truth is equal.

[Marina]

Thoroughly enjoyed Isaac's essay.
Never thought of science that way!

I loved his take on different degrees of right and wrong, especially his examples he gave on teacher and kids answers, (9+5=2 lol )also on the point of 0.0000862 difference on the earth’s curvature compared to it being flat. I was one who use to think they were eejits, thinking the world was flat but after reading Isaac’s essay, I have a different view. So it’s not a complete sphere either. That is news to me too!

Science then can be applied to anything and everything in our lives. All the truths we come up with are relative and keep changing with experiences, no matter how subtly - sometimes by huge degrees and sometimes by very little degree, depending on openness and honesty, a willingness to see there could be a more refined truth than the one we are holding. We could view our lives as one big scientific experiment - learning something new or not with each and every experience.

I am getting 'more right' as the days go by. lol

Marina

[Roger]

"I am getting 'more right' as the days go by."

--Does this mean, getting 'more left' is not so good?

"...a willingness to see there could be a more refined truth than the one we are holding."

--a more or less refined 'relative' truth or discovery, than the one we are holding. How firm should we be holding on to a truth? Nothing wrong with holding and letting go.

[Marina]

[Me]"I am getting 'more right' as the days go by."

[Roger]--Does this mean, getting 'more left' is not so good?

I meant right Roger, regarding 'right and wrong'. After reading Isaac's essay I am dropping wrong from my vocabulary regarding myself and now seeing 'movement' as different degrees of being right.

But when you ask if 'left' is not good, I say oh no, no, no, no. Of course left is also good. If you are leaning too far to the right it is good to counteract this with a movement to the left - unless that is, that you don't mind falling flat on your face. [And vice versa]

Also when dancing, it is good to sway both to the left and the right to keep the olde balance......

This song will keep you in good balance of things regarding left and right and a wee drop of coffee thrown in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbUQUut_xgw

Rog, you say:

"--a more or less refined 'relative' truth or discovery, than the one we are holding. How firm should we be holding on to a truth? Nothing wrong with holding and letting go."

How firm should we holding onto the truth?
That is an answer we can ask and come up with ourselves.
It all depends what you are holding onto though..... I wouldn't like to hold onto a piece of hot coal even for a second! And that’s the truth! :)

Marina

[Roger]

Marina,

Good points made...