Relativity of Wrong - Asimov

Sidheil · Jan 31, 2012

I came across this article the other day, and found it fairly interesting. For those that don't want to read it, the basic idea is that, while we have not yet reached ultimate knowledge about the universe, we are closer than we were before. Asimov claims that if we examine the history of science, we can see that each change in theory is not a complete rewrite, but a modification of what came before. So, going from the idea of the earth as flat to the earth as round is a correction. Going from the earth as round to the earth as an oblate spheroid is also a correction, but it is not as large as a correction. In effect, when we claimed the earth is round, we were wrong. But we were less wrong than when we claimed it was flat.

My question then, is do you think philosophy progresses in the same way? That we may not know all of the answers, but the longer the ideas get tossed around by different thinkers, the closer we can come to the truth?

GrowingSmaller · Feb 1, 2012

I think it say something that there are likely to be proportionately fewer metaphysical platonists today than there were 2000 years ago, even though we have better access to Plato's books. The point is we have more education, more alternative philosophies, better logic etc which means there has been progress.

Resha Caner · Feb 1, 2012

Sidheil said:
Asimov claims that if we examine the history of science, we can see that each change in theory is not a complete rewrite, but a modification of what came before.

I have a great admiration for Asimov. I think The End of Eternity is the greatest SciFi book ever written, and he is among the greatest writers of all time ... but he did have his faults, and this was one of them.

This idea is contrary to the great philosophers of science, such as Kuhn's thesis for paradigm shifts and scientific revolutions. They make a much better case than Asimov.

Sidheil said:
My question then, is do you think philosophy progresses in the same way? That we may not know all of the answers, but the longer the ideas get tossed around by different thinkers, the closer we can come to the truth?

No. People still argue the same questions they always have (http://www.christianforums.com/t7625731). There are even arguments about why these arguments continue on ... but of course my answer is the correct one.

Paradoxum · Feb 1, 2012

Sidheil said:
My question then, is do you think philosophy progresses in the same way? That we may not know all of the answers, but the longer the ideas get tossed around by different thinkers, the closer we can come to the truth?

I would like to think it does work the same, but we are still asking the same questions we always have. Perhaps philosophy is still waiting for its 'philosophical method'. Perhaps we can at least rule out incorrect philosophies.

underpressure · Feb 1, 2012

Sidheil said:
I came across this article the other day, and found it fairly interesting. For those that don't want to read it, the basic idea is that, while we have not yet reached ultimate knowledge about the universe, we are closer than we were before. Asimov claims that if we examine the history of science, we can see that each change in theory is not a complete rewrite, but a modification of what came before. So, going from the idea of the earth as flat to the earth as round is a correction. Going from the earth as round to the earth as an oblate spheroid is also a correction, but it is not as large as a correction. In effect, when we claimed the earth is round, we were wrong. But we were less wrong than when we claimed it was flat.

My question then, is do you think philosophy progresses in the same way? That we may not know all of the answers, but the longer the ideas get tossed around by different thinkers, the closer we can come to the truth?

Good question, I think yes. I think advances in science also refine questions and answers in philosophy, if full knowledge was possible (which incidentally I don't think full knowledge is logically possible, but that's another subject which I think I've got a proof for..) then philosophy would become a closed subject, so logically it would follow that the better our knowledge is, the closer philosophy is to becoming to being a closed subject, so yes philosophy is progressing IMO, that doesn't mean to say though that when one question gets answered, ten more questions don't immediately spring forward.

Trouble is philosophy is quite a broad subject, and it's hard to refine it, so progress isn't easy to see or measurable.

Sidheil · Feb 1, 2012

Paradoxum said:
I would like to think it does work the same, but we are still asking the same questions we always have. Perhaps philosophy is still waiting for its 'philosophical method'. Perhaps we can at least rule out incorrect philosophies.

I wonder of that's party of the reason for the rise of analytic philosophy?

Sidheil · Feb 1, 2012

Resha Caner said:
I have a great admiration for Asimov. I think The End of Eternity is the greatest SciFi book ever written, and he is among the greatest writers of all time ... but he did have his faults, and this was one of them.

This idea is contrary to the great philosophers of science, such as Kuhn's thesis for paradigm shifts and scientific revolutions. They make a much better case than Asimov.

No. People still argue the same questions they always have (http://www.christianforums.com/t7625731). There are even arguments about why these arguments continue on ... but of course my answer is the correct one.

Unfortunately I'm not very well versed in the philosophy of science, but you raise some good points. I'll look up some of Kuhn's works.

Resha Caner · Feb 1, 2012

Sidheil said:
I'll look up some of Kuhn's works.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is the book that turned science on its head. But it's not necessarily for beginners - plus it's just one view. I don't know you, so you could well be capable, but ...

If you're interested in a better balance of all the different views about the philosophy of science, I'd recommend: Philosophy of Science by Cover & Curd.

Or, the easy read would be: Fire in the Equations by Kitty Ferguson.

Or, we can discuss it here. Then you'll get the right answer (mine).

KCfromNC · Feb 2, 2012

Keep in mind that while Kuhn's work was often cited by others in the humanities, it had much less of an impact on people actually doing science. But this is typical of the field - the influence of philosophy of science work on scientists is vastly overstated.

bricklayer · Feb 2, 2012

Sidheil said:
I came across this article the other day, and found it fairly interesting. For those that don't want to read it, the basic idea is that, while we have not yet reached ultimate knowledge about the universe, we are closer than we were before. Asimov claims that if we examine the history of science, we can see that each change in theory is not a complete rewrite, but a modification of what came before. So, going from the idea of the earth as flat to the earth as round is a correction. Going from the earth as round to the earth as an oblate spheroid is also a correction, but it is not as large as a correction. In effect, when we claimed the earth is round, we were wrong. But we were less wrong than when we claimed it was flat.

My question then, is do you think philosophy progresses in the same way? That we may not know all of the answers, but the longer the ideas get tossed around by different thinkers, the closer we can come to the truth?

Philosophy, in as much as it is indispensable to the motivation of reason, is indispensable to the discovery of truth.

Philosophy is an affinity, an appetite. Philosophy is no more truth than hunger is food.
Philosophy is not an sequence of answers; it's an sequence of questions.

The Paul · Feb 2, 2012

Sidheil said:
I came across this article the other day, and found it fairly interesting. For those that don't want to read it, the basic idea is that, while we have not yet reached ultimate knowledge about the universe, we are closer than we were before. Asimov claims that if we examine the history of science, we can see that each change in theory is not a complete rewrite, but a modification of what came before. So, going from the idea of the earth as flat to the earth as round is a correction. Going from the earth as round to the earth as an oblate spheroid is also a correction, but it is not as large as a correction. In effect, when we claimed the earth is round, we were wrong. But we were less wrong than when we claimed it was flat.

My question then, is do you think philosophy progresses in the same way? That we may not know all of the answers, but the longer the ideas get tossed around by different thinkers, the closer we can come to the truth?

No, philosophy divorced from science is useless. Ideas become less popular, new ideas (or ideas once-discarded) gain popularity, everything shifts contantly... but there's nothing to hold anything else up against.

In science theories are tested against the world and we favor the ones that describe it best in an effort to reach theories that describe it perfectly.

In philosophy ideas are tested against whether or not we like them in an effort to come up with ideas we like.

GrowingSmaller · Feb 3, 2012

The Paul said:
No, philosophy divorced from science is useless. Ideas become less popular, new ideas (or ideas once-discarded) gain popularity, everything shifts contantly... but there's nothing to hold anything else up against.

In science theories are tested against the world and we favor the ones that describe it best in an effort to reach theories that describe it perfectly.

In philosophy ideas are tested against whether or not we like them in an effort to come up with ideas we like.

I disagree. For example who takes the ontology of elements of earth, fire, wind and water seriously nowadays? Also, in logic there has definitely been progress.

bricklayer · Feb 3, 2012

GrowingSmaller said:
I disagree. For example who takes the ontology of elements of earth, fire, wind and water seriously nowadays? Also, in logic there has definitely been progress.

Progress? or change?

The Paul · Feb 3, 2012

GrowingSmaller said:
I disagree. For example who takes the ontology of elements of earth, fire, wind and water seriously nowadays? Also, in logic there has definitely been progress.

That's not an advance made by pure philosophy, divorced from science. That's an advance made by science.

MattRose · Feb 4, 2012

Sidheil said:
I came across this article the other day, and found it fairly interesting. For those that don't want to read it, the basic idea is that, while we have not yet reached ultimate knowledge about the universe, we are closer than we were before. Asimov claims that if we examine the history of science, we can see that each change in theory is not a complete rewrite, but a modification of what came before. So, going from the idea of the earth as flat to the earth as round is a correction. Going from the earth as round to the earth as an oblate spheroid is also a correction, but it is not as large as a correction. In effect, when we claimed the earth is round, we were wrong. But we were less wrong than when we claimed it was flat.

My question then, is do you think philosophy progresses in the same way? That we may not know all of the answers, but the longer the ideas get tossed around by different thinkers, the closer we can come to the truth?

I think what you said is self-evident. Although we may occasionally start off in the wrong direction and have to back up, turn around, and go the other way, most advancements are as you suggest. This would apply to all fields that are evidence based or that employ the scientific method. I think one backward step in psychology (argueably the closest science to philosophy) is when they determined that homosexuality was a mental disorder. They reversed that in 1973 of course. I think that is why most people's philosophies are changing for acceptance of gays. Gays used to be shunned if not openly attacked, now not so much. 50 years from now they will be considered normal.

Now if you're talking about the really ditzy philosophies such as "Does the person next to me really exist, or is he just a creation of my mind?" Well those could go off on wild tangents at a moments notice.

Sidheil · Feb 4, 2012

I"m really surprised to see how critical of philosophy people are. I didn't expect to find that in the Philosophy subforum. My own quick defense is that science cannot answer all questions, and some very important questions must be answered by philosophy. But that is off-topic here, so I don't want to get too into it here.

Interesting thoughts by everyone, thank you for the responses. I really hadn't put too much thought into it, but since we still find philosophers who claim to be 'Aristotelian', it seems that philosophical ideas are much harder to change than scientific ones. If I had to give an answer, I would (hesitatingly) claim that ideas can progress as ideas continue to be tossed around by different thinkers, but this progress is hardly inevitable or systematic, and the newest ideas are not always the right ones.

The Paul · Feb 4, 2012

Sidheil said:
I"m really surprised to see how critical of philosophy people are. I didn't expect to find that in the Philosophy subforum. My own quick defense is that science cannot answer all questions, and some very important questions must be answered by philosophy. But that is off-topic here, so I don't want to get too into it here.

But the questions Science can't answer are things like questions about morality.

Even then, philosophy needs to be informed by science. A discussion about what is or isn't moral needs to be informed by an accurate understanding of what the consequences of any given action is.

Problem is, philosophers want to delve into scientific matters, say thing like "smoke rises because of the striations of earth, air, fire and water," in which case hope for any kind of progress has been abandoned along with science.

The Nihilist · Feb 4, 2012

The Paul said:
But the questions Science can't answer are things like questions about morality.

Even then, philosophy needs to be informed by science. A discussion about what is or isn't moral needs to be informed by an accurate understanding of what the consequences of any given action is.

Problem is, philosophers want to delve into scientific matters, say thing like "smoke rises because of the striations of earth, air, fire and water," in which case hope for any kind of progress has been abandoned along with science.

I was reading some Heidegger essay, and he pointed out that all natural sciences began as philosophy before they were spun off into their own rigorous discipline. For that reason, I think it's not unreasonable to say that scientific progress is philosophical progress in a sense, and more broadly that goofy ideas from early philosophers are no more problematic for philosophy than the ether or phlogiston are for science.

Archaeopteryx · Feb 5, 2012

Paradoxum said:
I would like to think it does work the same, but we are still asking the same questions we always have. Perhaps philosophy is still waiting for its 'philosophical method'. Perhaps we can at least rule out incorrect philosophies.

It's difficult to speak of a "method" in philosophy. There are some ideas about what philosophising consists in (cold arguments), but then there are philosophers who disagree (Cora Diamond and Raimond Gaita come to mind). Yet the absence of a clearly defined and systematised "method" has proven no obstacle to philosophy's progress, especially in tandem with the natural sciences. Although the use of different methods and styles has, on occasion, led to difficulties in communication between different schools (e.g. a certain heated exchanged between Derrida and Searle). I don't recall who, but someone suggested that philosophy naturally resists being relegated to the use of a permanent method. It is fundamentally open-ended and tentative, and it must be that way if it is to make any meaningful progress.

GrowingSmaller · Feb 5, 2012

The Paul said:
That's not an advance made by pure philosophy, divorced from science. That's an advance made by science.

On another message board someone put it like this: there has been progress in philosophy if we know new things in philosophy we did not know 2000 years ago. We do know more than we did. Therefore, there has been progress.

Relativity of Wrong - Asimov

Senior Member

Muslm Humanist

Expert Fool

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!

Newbie

Senior Member

Senior Member

Expert Fool

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Muslm Humanist

Well-Known Member

Newbie

MattRose

Guest

Senior Member

Newbie

Contributor

Wanderer

Muslm Humanist

Similar threads