
Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989) - shubhamjain
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
======
jleyank
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.

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

------
foldr
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.

~~~
coldtea
> _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.

~~~
foldr
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.

------
hyperpape
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](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-
realism/#PesInd).

------
aout
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?

~~~
mdpopescu
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...](http://blog.dilbert.com/post/109880240641/sciences-biggest-fail)

~~~
mdpopescu
... 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/](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.)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
So we think that is a dangerous thing? Believing the best, tested results of
experiments (science) is not superior to random religious tracts written
thousands of years ago?

The critical difference between treating science as a religion, and treating
religion as a religion, is that the science people have a good chance of being
right.

Its rational and reasonable to be uncritical of scientific results - the
scientist has already been critical for you. That's kind of the whole point.

~~~
mdpopescu
Just look at this statement:

_Its [sic] rational and reasonable to be uncritical of scientific results_

I do not believe that this person is sarcastic; I say that because I have
talked to hundreds of people with the same opinion. People actually believe
this. My authority is better than yours so you uncritically accepting your
authority is wrong, me uncritically accepting mine is not only right but
obviously so.

Ignoring the absurdity of the statement, and the mind-numbing appeal to
authority - this also shows a lack of knowledge of history. When people used
Aristotle as an authority 500 years ago, they did it using this same
rationale: Aristotle had already done all the thinking, who are you to claim
to know better?

This is just painful.

~~~
nitrogen
It's not an argument from authority, just a statement of the implied Bayesian
priors. One who gives greater weight to scientific papers than to religious
pronouncements is entirely rational in doing so. That is the entire well-
argued thesis of the Relativity of Wrong essay we are discussing.

~~~
RodericDay
Unthinking faith in "the institution of science", particularly the denial that
it can be co-opted for certain policy goals, and influenced by funding, and
lack the foresight to control for important environmental variables, has and
will continue to lead into stuff like eugenics, craniology, and austerity.

I'm still reeling from "Its rational and reasonable to be uncritical of
scientific results"\- smh.

~~~
nitrogen
Nobody used the words "unthinking" or "faith", or anything remotely resembling
them. Nobody said it was _ideal_ to be uncritical of scientific results, only
that it was _rational_. Rationality is not binary, at least as it appears to
be used in a charitable interpretation of the commenter's position. It can be
more rational to be uncritical of scientific results (which we can define for
the sake of argument any way we like, but probably involving peer review and
replication) than to be uncritical of unscientific pronouncements.

Given the available time and energy (or lack thereof) for most of us to
examine every scientific result in detail, it can even be _more_ rational (as
in best allocation of personal resources) to accept some scientific results
uncritically than to study them in detail. I'll note that I would argue for
tentative acceptance, with growing confidence over time myself, but the
original statement isn't wrong. It's just being interpreted through different
vocabularies.

P.S. This next part is not a response to you specifically, just a general
comment. I'm really disappointed by the polarizing tone of this thread, the
uncharitable readings of others comments, the implications of guilt by
association, and the emotionally motivated downvote brigades. HN used to be
better; we've discussed this essay before and it wasn't nearly so bad. So I'm
disappointed, and I'm disappointed in myself for participating, but feel I
must because of how much I like the essay and how important it is for people
to understand the concept of the relative wrongness of science.

------
BenoitEssiambre
Also see: "A Technical Explanation of Technical Explanation":
[http://www.yudkowsky.net/rational/technical/](http://www.yudkowsky.net/rational/technical/)

------
mdpopescu
Here's another relatively recent example:

[http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/fake-wonder-cream-
ex...](http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/fake-wonder-cream-experiment-
shows-why-you-cant-trust-a-clinical-trial/story-e6frfmyi-1227297697113)

Note that these were scientific studies, made by scientific labs. This is
_not_ the media misreporting.

------
voronoff
Another attempt to explain this: [https://medium.com/@maradydd/the-null-
hypothesis-loves-you-a...](https://medium.com/@maradydd/the-null-hypothesis-
loves-you-and-wants-you-to-be-happy-3189413d8cd0)

------
justifier
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

~~~
andyidsinga
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.

~~~
justifier
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

------
undertow

      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.

------
peter303
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
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).

