
Isaac Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong (1989) - nkurz
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
======
Jun8
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 pool code), let me
elaborate. There are basically three areas of intellectual endeavor,
classified by how they go about investigating the truth of the statements: One
is scientific, where questions are handled using the scientific approach, so
well described by Asimov. The other is group is axiomatic systems, like
mathematics (and heraldry), where statements are mostly _proven_ rather than
checked through experiments. Given a statement, e.g. "there are infinitely
many primes", one does not go about making measurements in the real world to
check its truth (although sometimes real-world models can help, pioneered by
Archimedes in the "Sand Reckoner").

Then, there's a third category of questions where these two approaches fail.
In fact, when asked a question of this type, one does not immediately know how
to go about proceeding to investigate it, e.g. "What is truth, Is there a
God", etc. This, of course, is the realm of philosophy with somewhat different
techniques of tackling problems then the previous two.

With this (rather simplistic) classification, we can see the impedance
mismatch between Asimov and the Lit guy. Asimov is the scientist par
excellence and is talking about the scientific method. However, the Lit guy's
letter (truth is relative, etc.) is the culmination of a certain philosophy
that is still the accepted standard in liberal arts school and may be summed
up as moral relativism. The guy's obvious error is to apply this approach to
the scientific realm. But mind you, this is very common with people of this
background. 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. Years ago,
my professor in graduate level Syntax course gave this very example with the
same conclusion that the Lit guy arrived.

But apart from its misapplication to scientific matters (such as the shape of
the earth), is the moral relativistic approach a useful one, despite its
acceptance as an axiom in a lot of universities? Now, that is a long debate.

~~~
Confusion
_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 of, Newtons theory.
Rather, it is a completely new theory, because it completely overthrows
fundamental concepts. 'Mass' and 'simultaneity' are not nearly the same thing
in Einstein's and Newton's theories. That they give nearly identical results
in a certain domain doesn't mean the theories are nearly identical. They just
give the same results, because they are both good scientific theories of that
domain.

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

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

O, well, that's that then.

~~~
Confusion
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.

~~~
rue
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?

------
cruise02
This is also included in a collection of essays by Asimov.
[http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Wrong-Isaac-
Asimov/dp/15756...](http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Wrong-Isaac-
Asimov/dp/1575660083) <\-- non-affiliate

------
cubicle67
This is a brilliant essay, and one that fundamentally changed the way I look
at things like right and wrong, and all that goes with it.

------
synnik
Reading about the flaws of a binary notion of right/wrong reminded me of the
10% rule, that I've noticed is not as prevalent in software as it should be:

For details that fit the 10% rule: 1) Only 10% of people will notice 2) Only
10% of those who notice will care.

Don't spend your time on these details until everything that does not fit the
rule is fixed.

------
alan-crowe
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 the old experiments.
Along come new experiments producing new data that the old theory cannot
explain.

To understand science you must contrast it with folk-wisdom. Folk-wisdom comes
up with a three part explanation of the new data. It is conservative in that
it keeps the old theory, as its explanation of the old data. It comes up with
a new theory that explains the new data, but not the old data. Thirdly it
offers an ad hoc guidance as to which theory applies.

Science is also conservative, but with a different vision of what this means.
Scientific conservatism lies in the high esteem granted to the old
experiments. The new theory cannot merely explain the new data, it must do
pretty well on the old data. Experimental error is important and we must at
first cut the new theory some slack as experimenters are prone to optimism
about the accuracy of their experiments especially when they agree with
established theory. But not for very long. Old experiments can be redone with
greater accuracy, and the new theory is expected to win both on the new
experiments and on the most accurate versions of the old experiments.

Notice my gradual build up to the central dilemma. A good theory has a degree
of inevitability about it. Newton's Law of Gravity is an inverse square law.
Distance raised to the power of 2. Perhaps we can get a better fit to the
orbit of Mercury with 2.00036, but that would be silly. Inevitability implies
brittleness. If new data contradicts the theory there may be no way to adjust
the theory.

If the old theory is a good one, but new experiments contradict it, folk
wisdom can accommodate this straight forwardly by keeping the good old theory
as the folk account of the old experiments. Scientists however have a serious
problem. The good old theory breaks when they try to bend it to fit the new
data, and the new theory has to agree with the old data, even though the old
data appear to force one to believe in the old theory as the unique good fit.

Scientists are caught in a trap. Their conservatism with respect to old
experiments forces them to be radical with respect to new theory. The new
theory cannot just beat the old theory on the new data, it has to beat the old
theory on the old data, the very data that gave rise to the old theory! This
requires radical new ideas. As [Lampedusa
says](<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Leopard>) "If we want things to stay
as they are, things will have to change."

Hence the 20th century phenomenon of lay people reading popular accounts of
Quantum Mechanics and of Relativity and coming away with the impression that
scientific truth is prone to dramatic changes. Is there any antidote? I
recommend A Quantum Mechanics Primer, by D.T. Gillespie. This slim, clear book
reaches Ehrenfest's equations on page 111, allowing the interested layman to
see how Quantum Mechanics leads to F=ma and beats Newtonian dynamics on its
home ground. But the book requires single variable calculus and a good enough
grasp of three dimensional vector spaces to realise that nothing goes too
horribly wrong when we add more dimensions. Is it really accessible to a
layman?

Ehrenfest's equations symbolism a new paradigm of total backwards
compatibility through radical change. Asimov ably covers the data side of
this, but wimps out of trying to explain the implications for theory.

~~~
kijuhygf
>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.

~~~
jerf
"The new theory cannot _just_ beat the old theory on the new data..."
(emphasis mine)

------
proemeth
Very similar topic to this post from today:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1147767>

~~~
araneae
I immediately thought of Asimov's essay when I read that too, so I'm not
surprised someone else posted it.

Of the two, I think Asimov's is much better (if only because the Fallacy of
Grey relies too much on analogy).

~~~
gjm11
Asimov's essay is explicitly referenced at the end of Yudkowsky's, so I'm
_really_ not surprised someone else posted it.

~~~
infinite8s
Yes, that generally seems to be the case with HN postings. I've noticed that
interesting links from articles or comments in those articles posted on HN
often become new HN postings.

------
gnosis
It's interesting that Asimov chose not to engage someone of his own statute,
like of Kuhn or Feyerabend; but instead picked on a nameless English major.

