But aren't you essentially arguing that, indeed, there's wrong and there's wronger, and refuting the English professor who seemed to argue that "everyone is wro

But aren't you essentially arguing that, indeed, there's wrong and there's wronger, and refuting the English professor who seemed to argue that "everyone is wrong but until shown this they are convinced they are right, therefore all knowledge is impossible"? (i.e. a slightly less new age version of "everything is relative!"). In other words, that Asimov is saying 2+2=5, while the English professor is saying "there's not difference between 5 and 'purple' as an answer!". In other words, don't you agree with main point of the article? I think we do understand a lot about the universe, even though there's also a huge amount we don't. I do think we understand "the basis" as Asimov put it -- it's just that even with the basis there's a lot we don't understand.