4 ms·

Relativity, which was the original subject, was not just a refinement of what we knew, it discovering that what we knew was just a special case of a much weirde

Relativity, which was the original subject, was not just a refinement of what we knew, it discovering that what we knew was just a special case of a much weirder universe. Actually, so was round-earth, for that matter, relative to the mental models available at the time. In both cases a rather abstract notion with no immediate practical impact. It's NOT a case of just coloring in the details, like the detailed measurements of the precise shape of the earth, it's a revolution in understanding. Pre-relativity, the general consensus was that we knew almost everything, save a few niggling details, like the black body problem. But pulling on that thread revealed a whole world underneath. Newtonian physics was, and still is, extremely useful. And there is certainly a hierarchy of wrongness, but the point is the arrogance of believing yourself to live closer to the end than the beginning.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
bad_user 10y ago
Science, or at least math and physics, works by modeling the world with imperfect but useful models. And evolution in these fields happens by finding newer models that are more and more precise in modeling the universe, but such breakthroughs can't really happen without the help of old models which shaped our understanding. Einstein stood on the shoulders of giants. And when we'll have a unifying theory between general relativity and quantum theory, you can sure that it wouldn't have been possible without the theories before it. And when that theory will happen, it will not disprove current theories, just as general relativity did not disprove Newton's theory, it will just replace it with something that is more precise. And I think the article does a good job of explaining this.
bo1024 10y ago
That's an interesting point. There are different ways to look at it. In terms of a huge change in our understanding of the world, I agree. But I think Asimov is thinking in terms of effectiveness of the model in explaining observations and making predictions. In say 2000 BC, a flat-earth and spherical-earth theory were probably both about the same level of effectiveness in explaining observations and making predictions about new observations. In the year 1800, Newton's mechanics were extremely effective in making correct predictions. As technology advanced and new observations were possible, some gaps were revealed. But even today, Newton's mechanics are extremely effective and accurate for explaining and predicting many observations in our world; just not all of it. Einstein's relativity does a much better job, but also not perfect. Now again, you can say that there is a huge fundamental difference between the flat-earth and round-earth theories, or between Newton and Einstein, and I agree, but here I think Asimov is just arguing from this "correctness of model in explaining/predicting" perspective.
- bo1024 10y ago
  Maybe to add to my own point, this gets at an interesting perhaps-philosophical question of the role of models and explanations in science. One extreme, closer to Asimov's arguments here, could be to say that the point of science is just to write down accurate predictions about the world. If a model allows us to do this accurately, then we might tend to accept the model without concern to whether the model is what we think is "really going on". I'm a bit more comfortable with this style of viewpoint because the proof is in the pudding (or rather the predictions) so it speaks for itself. A more opposing viewpoint could be that the point of science is to develop these models that explain why things happen, not just how they happen. So conservation of momentum is interpreted not just as a description of what happens when bodies move or collide, but also as a reason why they behave as they do. This is a frightening viewpoint because I tend to agree with you that we are very far from really understanding what's going on in physics; for example, imagining that some variant of string theory is true, this could completely change what we think "mass" means, even if the predictions about how objects behave is not very different.
- kemiller 10y ago
  So Asimov says this: "It seemed that in one of my innumerable essays, I had expressed a certain gladness at living in a century in which we finally got the basis of the universe straight." Whatever misconceptions our English major has about how science works, this strikes me as incredibly unlikely. If you believe in the law of accelerating returns, then it's almost infinitely unlikely — that the number of scientific revolutions yet to come is vastly larger than of those already past. So it's certainly not correct to say that we had "got it wrong" before, as if each attempt is like rolling the dice all over. It's also wrong (though, as he says, not AS wrong) to say that we've "finally" got it "straight".
  - bo1024 10y ago
    I think that's a good point.
- sunshiney 10y ago
  Spot on!
wslh 10y ago
> but the point is the arrogance of believing yourself to live closer to the end than the beginning. Asimov is criticizing the banality of the English student thinking, if he were supporting his claim in a more serious way they would had discussed the subject further.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

bad_user 10y ago

Science, or at least math and physics, works by modeling the world with imperfect but useful models. And evolution in these fields happens by finding newer models that are more and more precise in modeling the universe, but such breakthroughs can't really happen without the help of old models which shaped our understanding. Einstein stood on the shoulders of giants. And when we'll have a unifying theory between general relativity and quantum theory, you can sure that it wouldn't have been possible without the theories before it. And when that theory will happen, it will not disprove current theories, just as general relativity did not disprove Newton's theory, it will just replace it with something that is more precise. And I think the article does a good job of explaining this.

bo1024 10y ago

That's an interesting point. There are different ways to look at it. In terms of a huge change in our understanding of the world, I agree. But I think Asimov is thinking in terms of effectiveness of the model in explaining observations and making predictions. In say 2000 BC, a flat-earth and spherical-earth theory were probably both about the same level of effectiveness in explaining observations and making predictions about new observations. In the year 1800, Newton's mechanics were extremely effective in making correct predictions. As technology advanced and new observations were possible, some gaps were revealed. But even today, Newton's mechanics are extremely effective and accurate for explaining and predicting many observations in our world; just not all of it. Einstein's relativity does a much better job, but also not perfect. Now again, you can say that there is a huge fundamental difference between the flat-earth and round-earth theories, or between Newton and Einstein, and I agree, but here I think Asimov is just arguing from this "correctness of model in explaining/predicting" perspective.

bo1024 10y ago
Maybe to add to my own point, this gets at an interesting perhaps-philosophical question of the role of models and explanations in science. One extreme, closer to Asimov's arguments here, could be to say that the point of science is just to write down accurate predictions about the world. If a model allows us to do this accurately, then we might tend to accept the model without concern to whether the model is what we think is "really going on". I'm a bit more comfortable with this style of viewpoint because the proof is in the pudding (or rather the predictions) so it speaks for itself. A more opposing viewpoint could be that the point of science is to develop these models that explain why things happen, not just how they happen. So conservation of momentum is interpreted not just as a description of what happens when bodies move or collide, but also as a reason why they behave as they do. This is a frightening viewpoint because I tend to agree with you that we are very far from really understanding what's going on in physics; for example, imagining that some variant of string theory is true, this could completely change what we think "mass" means, even if the predictions about how objects behave is not very different.
kemiller 10y ago
So Asimov says this: "It seemed that in one of my innumerable essays, I had expressed a certain gladness at living in a century in which we finally got the basis of the universe straight." Whatever misconceptions our English major has about how science works, this strikes me as incredibly unlikely. If you believe in the law of accelerating returns, then it's almost infinitely unlikely — that the number of scientific revolutions yet to come is vastly larger than of those already past. So it's certainly not correct to say that we had "got it wrong" before, as if each attempt is like rolling the dice all over. It's also wrong (though, as he says, not AS wrong) to say that we've "finally" got it "straight".
- bo1024 10y ago
  I think that's a good point.
sunshiney 10y ago
Spot on!

wslh 10y ago

> but the point is the arrogance of believing yourself to live closer to the end than the beginning. Asimov is criticizing the banality of the English student thinking, if he were supporting his claim in a more serious way they would had discussed the subject further.