Isaac Asimov on wrong theories

[BaalChatzaf]

Here is a presentation of an essay by the late Isaac Asimov on how scientific theories are wrong.

Some wrong theories are less wrong than other wrong theories. Asimov was one of my thought heroes. In the same panmentathon as Feynman and a few others.

Please see:

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

Excellent video.

Asimov's points -- e.g., that some early scientific theories should be viewed as incomplete rather than as wrong -- could very easily be translated into the language of Randian contextualism. Harriman makes similar points in Logical Leap. I am sure you will heartily endorse those aspects of the book when you get around to commenting on it.

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

Excellent video.

Asimov's points -- e.g., that some early scientific theories should be viewed as incomplete rather than as wrong -- could very easily be translated into the language of Randian contextualism. Harriman makes similar points in Logical Leap. I am sure you will heartily endorse those aspects of the book when you get around to commenting on it.

Ghs

Having granted that some wrong theories are still useful (for example classical celestial mechanics), one still should ask WHY were the theories wrong. Even the wrong theories started out with some perceptible evidence. In Newton's theory the error in his law of gravitation lies in the assumption that gravitational interaction is instantaneous. Another error in Newton's meta-theoretics is the assumption that time and space are absolute. Newton believed in an absolute and universal time, although he was perfectly aware he could not measure it. He used clocks just like the rest of. He also believed that space was uniform, uncurved and could be characterized by Euclidean geometry. That too is an error.

The major divergence between Einstein and Newton lies in their conceptions of space and time.

Be that as it may, space is flat enough and Euclidean enough far away from massive gravitating objects that Euclidean geometry can be safely used for most practical purposes. So we will continue to build our bridges and navigate the outer solar system using classical physics and mathematics. But we will have to do our navigation making the appropriate time corrections required by the theory of relativity.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

Excellent video.

Asimov's points -- e.g., that some early scientific theories should be viewed as incomplete rather than as wrong -- could very easily be translated into the language of Randian contextualism. Harriman makes similar points in Logical Leap. I am sure you will heartily endorse those aspects of the book when you get around to commenting on it.

Ghs

Having granted that some wrong theories are still useful (for example classical celestial mechanics), one still should ask WHY were the theories wrong....

Yes, of course, but that isn't the fundamental point that Asimov is making. He is arguing against the notion that a scientific theory must be absolutely right or absolutely wrong. In other words, he is basically arguing for degrees of knowledge , which is a key aspect of Randian contextualism.

Moreover, Asimov says, in effect, that a given scientific theory may be viewed as "right" within the context of knowledge that was available to scientists at a given point in time. This is remarkably close to Peikovian contextualism.

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

Yes, of course, but that isn't the fundamental point that Asimov is making. He is arguing against the notion that a scientific theory must be absolutely right or absolutely wrong. In other words, he is basically arguing for degrees of knowledge , which is a key aspect of Randian contextualism.

Moreover, Asimov says, in effect, that a given scientific theory may be viewed as "right" within the context of knowledge that was available to scientists at a given point in time. This is remarkably close to Peikovian contextualism.

Ghs

The conflict between absolute time/space and the time/space of relativity is irreconcilable. One cannot have time/space that is part absolute and part relative. So there are elements of the newer theories that are different in kind from those in the older theories. Einsteins theories are not a refinement or a tweak of Newton's theories. At the base they are quite different. However for some ranges of velocities they give similar results. However in the realm of high speeds (near that of light speed) they theories predict very differently. To see this study the Lorentzian "fudge factor" 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). when v is very small (compared to light speed c) the "fudge factor" is nearly 1 so the results one gets in special relativity are nearly those for Newtonian mechanics. However for v closer to c things change radically. Read any book on special relativity, in particular the Lorentz Transform.

An excerpt from the Wiki article:

Special relativity

One of the most astounding consequences of Einstein's clock-setting method is the idea that time is relative. In essence, each observer's frame of reference is associated with a unique set of clocks, the result being that time passes at different rates for different observers. This was a direct result of the Lorentz transformations and is called time dilation. We can also clearly see from the Lorentz "local time" transformation that the concept of the relativity of simultaneity and of the relativity of length contraction are also consequences of that clock-setting hypothesis.

Lorentz transformations can also be used to prove that magnetic and electric fields are simply different aspects of the same force — the electromagnetic force. If we have one charge or a collection of charges which are all stationary with respect to each other, we can observe the system in a frame in which there is no motion of the charges. In this frame, there is only an "electric field". If we switch to a moving frame, the Lorentz transformation will predict that a "magnetic field" is present. This field was initially unified in Maxwell's concept of the "electromagnetic field".

[edit]The correspondence principle

For relative speeds much less than the speed of light, the Lorentz transformations reduce to theGalilean transformation in accordance with the correspondence principle.

The correspondence limit is usually stated mathematically as: as , . In words: as velocity approaches 0, the speed of light (seems to) approach infinity. Hence, it is sometimes said that nonrelativistic physics is a physics of "instant action at a distance".

the entire article is at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

Ba'al Chatzaf

[syrakusos]

Yes, of course, but that isn't the fundamental point that Asimov is making. He is arguing against the notion that a scientific theory must be absolutely right or absolutely wrong. In other words, he is basically arguing for degrees of knowledge , which is a key aspect of Randian contextualism.

"The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that 'right' and 'wrong' are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely rights 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."

How does that agree with anything that Ayn Rand said?

Contextualism is the Randian's escape hatch from the problems of absolutism. Ayn Rand called her philosophy Objectivism with a capital O knowing full well that objectivism with a small o is rational-empiricism. She did not call her philosophy Contextualism.

You know... like her, I enjoy The Twilight Zone of Rod Serling. We all do, I guess. And for me, perhaps the most disturbing story was about the astronaut who came "home" to a place that was not quite. It started with the white pickett fence and pretty soon, NASA psychiatrists were asking him who "John Kennedy" is supposed to be. Sometimes, I think I'm in that episode.

[George H. Smith]

Yes, of course, but that isn't the fundamental point that Asimov is making. He is arguing against the notion that a scientific theory must be absolutely right or absolutely wrong. In other words, he is basically arguing for degrees of knowledge , which is a key aspect of Randian contextualism.

"The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that 'right' and 'wrong' are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely rights 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."

How does that agree with anything that Ayn Rand said?

These initial remarks by Asimov are rather crudely put, but as the video proceeds his meaning becomes more clear. I didn't endorse Asimov's specific formulation of the philosophical issues. I said his points could easily be translated into the language of Randian contextualism. If you don't agree, then you don't agree, but I'm not going to take the time to go through the video point by point.

Contextualism is the Randian's escape hatch from the problems of absolutism. Ayn Rand called her philosophy Objectivism with a capital O knowing full well that objectivism with a small o is rational-empiricism. She did not call her philosophy Contextualism.

Thanks for the news flash.

Given the passage by Asimov that you quoted, is it that much of a stretch to understand that he was also attempting to avoid the pitfalls of absolutism, while simultaneously avoiding the pitfalls of relativism?. He achieved this result quite well for a brief presentation, despite some clunky wording here and there.

Ghs

[syrakusos]

Given the passage by Asimov that you quoted, is it that much of a stretch to understand that he was also attempting to avoid the pitfalls of absolutism...

A friend of mine went to MIT and I visited him when I was on Spring Break one year. Using the ID card of someone who might looked vaguely like me, I attended a talk by Isaac Asimov on "The Coming Disappearance of Women." In the Q&A, he was asked about Ayn Rand. He said that he had not read much, but based on what he did read, "Ayn Rand stinks." That drew an immediate groan of disappointment from perhaps 20 to 50 followed by an approving applause and cheer from twice or thrice that. Clearly, this was a case of unrequired love. Salvor Hardin, Hober Mallow, the merchant princes... and in addition to all of his wonderful storytelling, there came the production of readable, intelligent non-fiction.

Also, I am willing to confess here and now that sometimes I find right and wrong to be fuzzy concepts.

That said, however, I believe that right and wrong are absolutes. (You can play catch with a cushy ball of fluff, or a melting ice cube. The object changes, but the game continues because you can catch something you cannot define unambiguously.) Applying right and wrong to human affairs -- at least to my corner of it -- requires considering the context. Ayn Rand did not call her philsophy Contextualism, but neither did she call it Absolutism or Formalism. Objective morality requires an integration of facts and theories according to standards and values.

All of that being as it may, putting Isaac Asimov in the Objectivist club is forcing a square peg into a round hole, as would be the case with Carl Sagan, or Timothy Leary. Leary supported nuclear power and the space program and said that industrial pollution was only the inevitable fouling of the nest before the fledglings take wing. In reply, Erwin S. Strauss quipped about the possibility of a Rand-Leary fusionist movement.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Michael E. Marotta

[George H. Smith]

Given the passage by Asimov that you quoted, is it that much of a stretch to understand that he was also attempting to avoid the pitfalls of absolutism...

A friend of mine went to MIT and I visited him when I was on Spring Break one year. Using the ID card of someone who might looked vaguely like me, I attended a talk by Isaac Asimov on "The Coming Disappearance of Women." In the Q&A, he was asked about Ayn Rand. He said that he had not read much, but based on what he did read, "Ayn Rand stinks." That drew an immediate groan of disappointment from perhaps 20 to 50 followed by an approving applause and cheer from twice or thrice that. Clearly, this was a case of unrequired love. Salvor Hardin, Hober Mallow, the merchant princes... and in addition to all of his wonderful storytelling, there came the production of readable, intelligent non-fiction.

Also, I am willing to confess here and now that sometimes I find right and wrong to be fuzzy concepts.

That said, however, I believe that right and wrong are absolutes. (You can play catch with a cushy ball of fluff, or a melting ice cube. The object changes, but the game continues because you can catch something you cannot define unambiguously.) Applying right and wrong to human affairs -- at least to my corner of it -- requires considering the context. Ayn Rand did not call her philsophy Contextualism, but neither did she call it Absolutism or Formalism. Objective morality requires an integration of facts and theories according to standards and values.

All of that being as it may, putting Isaac Asimov in the Objectivist club is forcing a square peg into a round hole, as would be the case with Carl Sagan, or Timothy Leary. Leary supported nuclear power and the space program and said that industrial pollution was only the inevitable fouling of the nest before the fledglings take wing. In reply, Erwin S. Strauss quipped about the possibility of a Rand-Leary fusionist movement.

Again, I made no suggestion that Asmiov should be put "in the Objectivist club." I merely said that his points could easily be translated into the language of Randian contextualism.

In Chapter 5 of ATCAG, before getting into Rand's theory of knowledge, I quoted a few other philosophers who argued that human fallibility cannot be used as a pretext to justify skepticism. One of these was the philosopher J.L. Austin, who argued that the fact that man is "inherently fallible" does not entail that he is "inveterately so." Austin continues:

Machines are inherently liable to brak down, but good machines don't (often). It is futile to embark on a "theory of knowledge" which denies this liability: such theories constantly end up by admitting the liability after all, and denying the existence of knowledge.

Austin belonged to the school of thought known as "linguistic analysis" (or "ordinary language philosophy"), and I never suggest that he would agree with Rand's theory of knowledge; I never suggest that he should be put in the "Objectivist club." But I went on to say:

A contextual view of doubt must rest, implicitly or explicitly, on a contextual theory of knowledge and certainty; but none of the preceding philosophers have developed such a theory in detail. Important work in this area haw been undertaken by Ayn Rand, the Russian-born novelist and philosopher, whose contextual approach to knowledge provides a solid framework for our critique of skepticism.

This is basically the same point I was making about Asimov, and I regard this approach as an excellent way of expanding the frontiers of Objectivism. You suggest, in contrast, that we should shun any thinker who doesn't toe the Randian line, at least on essentials, even when it is possible to show how Rand's theory provides a better explanation for the valid points they make than they themselves provide.

I reject this insular approach lock, stock, and barrel. It is largely responsible for imparting a cultish feel to Objectivism, and that amounts to a death warrant.

Yes, I know you will say that you were not advocating any such thing. But this is the effect of your remarks, if not your intention.

Ghs

[Peter]

Ghs wrote:

This is basically the same point I was making about Asimov, and I regard this approach as an excellent way of expanding the frontiers of Objectivism. You suggest, in contrast, that we should shun any thinker who doesn't toe the Randian line, at least on essentials, even when it is possible to show how Rand's theory provides a better explanation for the valid points they make than they themselves provide . . . I reject this insular approach lock, stock, and barrel. It is largely responsible for imparting a cultish feel to Objectivism, and that amounts to a death warrant.

end quote

Excellent point George. I hope your new book is going to be out soon. And thanks to Bob for this thread. I read everything Asimov wrote though his Foundation Trilogy was simultaneously exhilarating and depressing to me. I received as a Christmas gift, a non-fiction book of his explaining scientific theories and machines and it is an excellent book to give to a teen or an adult.

Asimov-ian, Randian, and George H. Smith-ian Contextualism are not at odds, nor do these concepts require wording that is absolutely perfect to be useable even in a Relativistic Scientific World Community. It’s the thought that counts.

Peter

[Peter]

Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics

1) A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2) A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3) A robot must protect its own existence, as long as such protection, does not conflict with the First or Second Law.”

end quote

How this programmed morality functions in real life, with Robots using their perceptions of reality, in much the way humans do, is where the drama comes in. Should a robot allow a human being to do something risky? Should a robot steer a human towards more rational acts? Is the greatest good for the greatest number of humans, a consideration for a robot? Within its parameters can a robot be volitional?

Asimov later postulated a 4th Law which in a sense is placed before the First Law.

The Zeroth Law:

A robot may not injure humanity, or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

end quote

As George has noted, some O’ists say, “I consider myself an Objectivist, because I agree with ALL of the fundamental ideals of Objectivism as defined by Ayn Rand. It is not an "all or nothing" philosophy.

Amazingly, (I am being facetious) many who disagree with one or more aspects of Objectivism as written by Ayn Rand (like a woman president, gays, smoking,) still consider themselves Objectivists. Does being an Objectivist depend on the opinion of others? Does Objectivism require laws like the Four Laws of Robotics? I am somewhat benevolent on this issue )

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[syrakusos]

First, there is no such thing as "Objectivist science;" and even "Objectivist philosophy" is a a shorthand symbol for "the Objectivist school of philosophy." (That point was made by Ayn Rand.) Facts are facts. Valid philosophy integrates new facts into its existing structure, or else changes its assertions based on the discovery of new premises. When Isaac Asimov wrote as a scientist, his truthful statements must be accepted. When he wrote as a philosopher of science, then the matter is different. When he (or Timothy Leary or Carl Sagan or Christopher Hutchens) expounded on current events, truth may be hard to find.

As for the Laws of Robotics, Asimov wrote mysteries based on supposed violations of the Laws. In one, "Liar!" Susan Calvin's own robot sought to protect her from what she knew to be true about her lack of good looks in the first place and her aging in addition to her self-defined aura of a slightly unkempt scientist. In another novel (Robots of Dawn?) the perpetrator robot did not know that the being in front of him was human. And so on. Moreover, Rudy Rucker wrote several stories about non-Asmovian robots loose and living large on the Moon. The Laws of Robotics are not physical laws: they can be broken.

The Principles of Objectivism rest on the Basic Principles of Objectivism which rest, like Ayn Rand, on one foot. The story is well-known and retold, even by Rand herself. The original event was this:

At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:

Metaphysics Objective Reality

Epistemology Reason

Ethics Self-interest

Politics Capitalism

If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

Rand later expanded that for her column in the LA Times. Continuing ....

If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

So, it is with Robotics ... or physics ... What makes an airplane fly? When I started in aviation, I read a lot and took a couple of ground schools before passing the FAA private pilot's Written Examination in theory and practice. Bernouli's Law was part of that. It seemed clear enough. Later - after I stopped flying - I was presenting public demonstrations at the Ann Arbor Hands-On Museum. They had a classic beach ball in an airstream in one of the galleries. To talk about it, I went back to the basics... and discovered a bit of argument on "Newton versus Bernoulli." It can be interesting... but nothing can violate a basic principle of physics.

And this brings us back to Asimov on wrong theories. Ayn Rand's Objectivism is only a refinement of classical objectivism which is also known classically as rational-empiricism. In modern sociology, they call this "positivism" and equate it with the "Enlightment project" and the scientific method, all of which are more or less rejected today. But there is no such thing as capital P-Positivism. And there is a capital O-Objectivism. Whether and to what extend you are free to further improve Objectivism is why we have open publication and discussion of ideas.

Finally, many statuses are ascribed to us. What is President Obama's race? Does he have any choice in that? He can call himself a Martian, but that will not change what others call him. You can claim - while on your way to see Andy Warhol's Sleep for the tenth time - that reality is all your head, that reason is powerless and the senses are invalid, that you live to serve others, and that it would be best if the government forced us to do that for everyone's own good, and, yes, you, too, are on Objectivist. You will not find much ascribed status among other self-identified Objectivists.

I recently took up an interest in comics. In a Justice Society of America story, we meet the evil Dr. Chaos. He says. "I don't have a Ph.D. in it or anything..." Some statuses are self-ascribed. "Objectivist" is like that. I call myself an Objectivist, even though I find not much support in reality for Ayn Rand's claim that government is defined by its police role, and I expect that a woman can and should be President of the United States. It is a matter of Basic Principles, Principles, and Accepted Theory.