w-o-w i'm enlightened :)
w-o-w i'm enlightened :)
I liked this
Quoth from text: "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.
However, I don't think that's so. It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts, and I will devote this essay to an explanation of why I think so."
Asimov is the bestest.
I don't understand what the point of this is. For a scientist this guy really sucks at having a logical flow in his writing. He's just all over the place.
Couldn't be bothered to read
I like the general point he is making, but I do agree with what was said about him misreading Socrates. The humility of Socrates is genuine, but he does become aware of his superiority leading up to his trial (in my opinion).
Hilarious...A very fun and entertaining read :)
@letlightshine, I'm not sure what you mean by saying '17' may be a "better wrong answer" than 'purple' to the question '2 + 2', yet "still wrong and not anymore right". I think the crux of Asimov's argument, one which you briefly adopted, is that 17 _is_ a "better wrong answer" than purple, and, synonymously, _is_ closer to the right answer. Asimov went further and suggested 3.9999 as an example of being wrong, but very, very close to the right answer. Let's put it this way, would a 24 year old woman rather have a guy guess her age and pick 22 or pick 35? What if he answered, with sincerity, 'aardvark'? I somehow doubt the three answers would lead to equally keen dating prospects afterward.
@Algebraic0, I believe Asimov was attempting humor when he wrote "There is very little that is new to me; I wish my corresponders would realize this." In fact, one of the 'occupations' Wikipedia lists on his biography is 'humorist', alongside novelist, essayist, historian, and professor of biochemistry.
Errata: There seems to be one typo near the end of the essay; "Speeding subatomic articles" should read "Speeding subatomic particles", unless journalists figured out how to etch their stories onto quarks and neutrinos. Yes, that was my attempt at humor. See, even our most earnest of attempts can fall flagrantly flat at times.
i don't think many of you read this. he actually comes across as bitter, immature andself important
Isaac Asimov's "the Relativity of Wrong" should be required reading for all college students.
From the page: "There is very little that is new to me; I wish my corresponders would realize this." Congratulations, you overrated, dead, condescending douchebag, your brilliance is beyond the comprehension of us mortals. The reading of Socrates is dead wrong as well, but then again, I'm sure he left Plato to be read those awful humanities students. He was too busy writing pedantic articles about how many things he knew.
Very thought provoking essay, however, at least the way I interpreted somewhat contradictory. Although we are continually discovering that we do not have the answers that doesnt mean there isnt an absolute right or wrong. As humans can we have the exact answer? Maybe not. But that doesnt mean there isnt an answer, it just means that as humans we are limited in our own understanding.
I think his definition of relativity is more along the lines of subjectivity. When asked what 2+2 equals 17 and purple are both wrong answers. 17 maybe a better wrong answer but it is still wrong and not anymore right. Saying it is an integer, would indeed be correct, but it is subject to the interpretation. When preschools are asked what 2+2 is they have some previous understanding of what the teacher is looking for. If it where necessary teachers would have to further define a question so that there is complete understanding. By saying the earth is a sphere would indeed be technically wrong, but the interpretation could be correct. Answers are subjective by the way humans convey and interpret them. They themselves are not relative, however as humans we limit their degree of absoluteness.
Please understand that I do not pretend to know everything. Just my understanding. That aside I still appreciate Isaac Asimov's work.
This is an excellent article on why it is important that scientific theories be falsifiable.
"Basically don't fuck with Asimov" - Stroby2
I just knew Socrates was the internet troll of his era.....
Views of right and wrong are based on knowledge, as knowledge increases over time right and wrong approach a limit of certainty. What he describes is what is commonly known as the "learning curve".
Let me be the ignorant fool who says "TLDR"
Read about half. Realize the point. While we may not know EXACTLY how things work, we can put together as many pieces as possible. If I have a puzzle of a picture, and I've completed a lot of it as best as I can, and you can tell what I'm trying to get at, but I can't find the other pieces just yet, Is it pointless and wrong? No.. Fuck no, it's still helpful.