4 ms·
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
by bo1024 11y 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 11y agoMaybe 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 11y agoSo 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 11y agoI think that's a good point.
- sunshiney 11y agoSpot on!