The Relativity of Wrong

In response to DonExodus2's video Faith and Evolution, I'm putting up this paraphrase of an excellent article by Isaac Asimov on "The Relativity of Wrong", The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 14 No. 1, p. 35-44 Fall 1989. I hope it sparks some thoughts.

You can find the orignal at:
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

DonExodus2's original video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9iljh815mU

The Wikipedia page on Isaac Asimov:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov

I apologize if there are obvious problems with this video. It was put together in a hurry.

Here are some bonus Asimov quotes:
"Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."

"A subtle thought that is in error may yet give rise to fruitful inquiry that can establish truths of great value. "

"From my close observation of writers... they fall into two groups: 1) those who bleed copiously and visibly at any bad review, and 2) those who bleed copiously and secretly at any bad review. "

"Suppose that we are wise enough to learn and know - and yet not wise enough to control our learning and knowledge, so that we use it to destroy ourselves? Even if that is so, knowledge remains better than ignorance. "

And, my favorite:
"Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Category:

Education

Tags:

• DonExodus2
• Isaac
• Asimov
• science
• wrong
• shape
• Earth
• sphere
• flat
• spheroid
• oblate
• pear
• evolution
• creation
• geology
• faith

[TheNightwing01]

C0nc0rdance. I love the videos, I have to preface this with the caveat that my field is psychology, so physics is a little out side my expertise. With that said does the argument that the universe is so precise seem like a plausible argument for the existence of God? I ask because from what I understand the only major counter to that is the multiple universe hypotheses.

[C0nc0rdance]

@TheNightwing01

By "so precise" do you mean the fundamental constants of physics are fine-tuned for our existence? Why does that suggest supernatural intervention to you? To me it just looks like an interesting pattern.  I can think of at least three reasons the constants all coordinate.

1. Linked values.

2. Parallel multiverse.

3. Multiple, sequential iterations of universes.

[C0nc0rdance]

@Newtspeare

I hope you'll forgive a little criticism, but actually, YOU are displaying the exact properties of the "humanities correspondent". Science doesn't deal in absolutes, but we also don't hold truth to be relative and subjective. The words "totally proven" are something you are unlikely to ever hear a scientist say. We operate in decreasing uncertainties, not increasing certainty. We approach a narrower and narrower error bar in our knowledge. That's the message.

[C0nc0rdance]

@janne808

No, no, no! Quantum physics is built on empirical observations! The reason we know neutrinos exist is their interactions with matter. You're saying spiritual worlds not revealed through empirical testing exist, and are significant. My question is what is the difference between something that cannot be observed, directly or indirectly, and something that does not exist.

For example, the Schfoozle is an undetectable animal... what does the study of Schfoozles teach us?

[SoulTears1]

@Nightwalker9001 THE VIDEO IS CALLED HOW SCIENCE SAVED MY LIFE

[Nightwalker9001]

Guys please help me out what is the one called where he talks about gazing up into the night sky and about how science sucks the fun out if it you know please help!

[DrIdaho]

Another logical video :)

[paspax]

Atheist: "there is no god"

theist: "there is a dear & fluffy lord"

Agnostic : "I'm too stupid to pick a side. Maybe I should become a young earth creationist baptist televangelist criminal"

[jcn35]

giggle giggle, English majors

[TheNightwing01]

@C0nc0rdance P.S thanks for taking the time to respond how you are having a great Monday :)

[TheNightwing01]

@C0nc0rdance Yes I did, I think the problem that I have is the Parallel multiverse is not proven, not that it means it does not exist I think Credible scientists have show how it could if I read the literature right. I think it suggests supernatural intervention because it seems for give the term designed in some way. As I said before I could be wrong I may be a little out of my depth in this realm. So what your saying is that the constants that we developed due to linked values?

[aqouby]

@attheveryend Thanks for the definition of agnosticism. lol, aggressively define a hot-dog..

[attheveryend]

@C0nc0rdance,

The fundamental constants of nature exist solely to transmogrify one unit system to another. A good example of this is the boltzmann constant, which exists purely as an artifact of using Avagadro's number to establish a mole. I argue that a fundamental unit of temperature would be 1 Kelvin * Boltzmann Constant--such a unit would eliminate the constant entirely and make it = 1. Further modifications to units would, in principle, eliminate all but pi and the natural base.

[attheveryend]

@aqouby,

Agnosticism is precisely defined this way: a belief that knowledge of any deity or deities is unobtainable--that humans can not have knowledge about god. This is independent of any belief in the existence of a deity or deities.

As far as "aggressive definitions" go, I think the term is meaningless. Can you aggressively define a "hot dog" for me? Is it more aggressive if written furiously? Atheism is purely lack of belief in deities. Any addition to that is Atheism+