…and this is a 
It's an odd thing that when people list great science popularizers of the past, names like Sagan and Feynman always pop up, but most people seem to have forgotten Isaac Asimov, who wrote some fabulous essays on understanding science. Here's one example, in which he addresses a claim we hear all the time, that the errors of the past mean our knowledge now is on very shaky ground. He's answering a complaint from an English Lit student who chastised Asimov for thinking he knew anything at all.
The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong. The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing." the implication was that I was very foolish because I was under the impression I knew a great deal.
My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right 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.
Go read the rest, it's worth the time.
Humanities & Social Science
Comments
Posted by: Monado, FCD | December 6, 2009 11:28 PM
Asimov online? Cool! His science books helped to crystallize my decision to go into science. I fell by the wayside, but that's neither here nor there.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 6, 2009 11:28 PM
I've read that essay on several ocassions. It is worth the time.
Posted by: Patrick Julius | December 6, 2009 11:30 PM
A truly classic essay by Asimov, one everyone should read. In fact, this essay might well be the most efficient source of critical thinking improvement per word available in the world today.
Posted by: Zeno | December 6, 2009 11:38 PM
Thanks, PZ, for reminding us about Isaac Asimov. I have a couple of shelves stuffed with his books as well as a couple of postcards he sent me in response to fan mail way back when.
Now I have to go find them.
Posted by: ItchySeaBod | December 6, 2009 11:44 PM
FTFA:
BURN!!!!!
Posted by: ejay | December 6, 2009 11:49 PM
Asimov was peerless at explaining science, religion, history or anything else. I don't know why he seems to be mostly overlooked today, although I suspect it has something to do with the fact that he died before the advent of Youtube.
Some Pharyngula readers might enjoy another of his essays, "Knock Plastic." Others might like his book "The Sensuous Dirty Old Man."
Posted by: Kathy Orlinsky | December 6, 2009 11:56 PM
I'm surprised that people have forgotten Asimov. I have far more books by him than by any other author on any subject. Granted, many of them are nonfiction, but by no means all!
Posted by: Prof. Bleen | December 7, 2009 12:04 AM
Another unusual and oft-overlooked Asimov work is Limericks: Too Gross! co-written with poet John Ciardi.
I'm very close to completing my Asimov science-essay collection. "The Relativity of Wrong" is indeed a classic. Any essay of his grounded in science history is a delight to read, and that's most of them.
Posted by: Nasikabatrachus | December 7, 2009 12:18 AM
I call it the Past Mythology Fallacy.
People in the past were incredibly wrong, but were proven wrong in the future. Therefore the "knowledge" of today will inevitably be viewed as complete mythology by people in the future (and that's why Zen is better than science! Yes, I really have seen that.)
Asimov addresses it perfectly. The 'Mov is awesome.
Posted by: Kagato
|
December 7, 2009 12:24 AM
I recently read one of his essay collections, "Counting the Eons". As it turns out, he pretty much compiled this collection specifically as a counter to creationist thought, and says as much in the introduction.
Unfortunately, it's not available in Google Books, or I'd post a link to the introduction. I'll have to find it and post a snippet for you tomorrow.
Posted by: Menyambal | December 7, 2009 12:37 AM
I grew up reading the Good Doctor's work, and strongly recommend that everyone go read ANY of his books. Entertaining and informative, no matter the subject, and the subjects are varied, indeed.
I just re-read _The_Gods_Themselves_, and was reminded that the title is taken from "Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain."
Posted by: Xantief | December 7, 2009 12:40 AM
I feel that Asimov is an appropriate name for a space station or something like that.
Great human, great mind.
Posted by: Tacroy | December 7, 2009 12:43 AM
Man, Asimov was awesome. He wasn't always the best author, but he was really damn prolific. Usually I try to read all of an author's material, but I always find an Asimov gem tucked into some dusty corner.
Did you know he died of AIDS? Truly a sad occurrence (he got it from a blood transfusion). I won't ever have a chance to get a fan mail postcard like Zeno :(
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 7, 2009 12:47 AM
bookmarked for future use :-)
I have to admit I never read any of Asimov's non-fiction. maybe it's time to remedy that.
Posted by: Brian
|
December 7, 2009 12:48 AM
When I was a teenager, I wanted to grow up to be Isaac Asimov. As far as I could see he had the perfect life.
And then I wanted to get married to Susan Calvin.
Posted by: Kausik Datta
|
December 7, 2009 12:51 AM
I shall debate that with anyone! I have almost completed my collection of his science fiction single books. Easily one of my best authors, ever!Posted by: cousinavi.wordpress.com
|
December 7, 2009 1:02 AM
Asimov trivia: Isaac is the only author, living or dead, who has published works in every major segment of the Dewey Decimal system.
Truly one of the most prolific writers of all time, and a visionary thinker.
Posted by: Jennifer Burdoo | December 7, 2009 1:04 AM
I grew up reading Asimov. He had a lot more to say about science, pseudoscience, and science education than I think many people remember. And he steered me toward an interest in science and skepticism.
His nonfiction was spare but always enlightening, his fiction thought-provoking, and his humor still makes me laugh.
He contributed so much. I miss him.
Posted by: Uncephalized | December 7, 2009 1:15 AM
Great essay! I can't seem to find the full text of any of his others though--anyone have any links?
Posted by: neotropic9 | December 7, 2009 1:35 AM
The philosophical term for what he is talking about is "verisimilitude" (truth-likeness). Scientific theories are not simply either true or false -they approximate the truth to various degrees. Newtonian physics is true to the extent that it can account for the observable data (which is pretty well in most circumstances that we humans ordinarily find ourselves in). The fact that Einstein can better account for certain phenomena does not mean that Newton contributed nothing.
That our scientific theories have a property that we can call "truth-likeness" is IMO best shown by their predictive success. This is called the "miracle argument": our ability to predict things happening in the real world by using our scientific theories would be miraculous if our theories were not true. I would say that the extent to which a theory generates falsifiable but correct predictions is the extent to which that theory is true. I find this is a helpful way of thinking about the truth of our theories.
Posted by: blf | December 7, 2009 1:58 AM
Yet another one here who grew up reading Asimov (fiction and non-fiction). In fact, it was Asimov's Guide to the Bible which sealed my this-is-BS opinion of religions (since I never really believed I cannot say I was converted, but until then allowed more doubt than is justified by the non-existent evidence).
I'm not sure what's happened to my collection of Asimov fiction. I still have much of the non-fiction part of the collection, albeit some of it is not currently on my shelves (more due to lack of space than anything else). Having said that, I don't (at least at the moment) recall the essay Little Pee Zee quoted… time to do some reading!
Posted by: Escuerd | December 7, 2009 2:25 AM
Thank you for this, PZ.
Asimov is one of my all-time favorite authors.
Posted by: echidna
|
December 7, 2009 2:33 AM
Asimov was a wonderful writer. I know that he doesn't appeal for those looking for complexity through symbolism and stylistic features, but his directness and clarity was just the right style to convey the complex ideas he wrote about.
Posted by: Escuerd | December 7, 2009 2:38 AM
I remember hearing somewhere that he didn't have anything published under "Philosophy". But as the man clearly had a great deal of philosophical depth, this is somewhat surprising.
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 7, 2009 2:46 AM
I always love reading Asomiv. So bright, yet writes so accessibly.
Posted by: devnull73.myopenid.com
|
December 7, 2009 2:46 AM
"It's a little wrong to say a tomato is a vegetable; it's a lot wrong to say it's a suspension bridge." - Stuart from "Big Bang Theory"
Posted by: scooter | December 7, 2009 2:48 AM
neotropic9 @ 20
Colbert's 'truthiness' has philosophical and scientific counterparts. Whoda thunkit ?
Posted by: Alan | December 7, 2009 3:26 AM
Wonderful essay. So succinct, leaves little room for argument, and yet doesn't accuse the credulous of being morons - important to keeping them reading.
Posted by: MadScientist | December 7, 2009 3:36 AM
My only objection is that Asimov is not presenting historical fact but a retrospective view. History was much messier and includes, for example, reverting from a spherical earth to a flat earth. To make a nice story, developments are strung together as if there were a smooth progression which was not the case at all. On the other hand I guess he has to leave out the nasty details to make his point that things progressively improve and what existed before may not be as wrong as some people imagine it to be.
Posted by: DLC
|
December 7, 2009 3:38 AM
I've been an Asimov fan since the 1970s.
He was a wonderful wordsmith. Even his academic works are pleasant to read.
Posted by: Masks of Eris | December 7, 2009 4:15 AM
At Xantief in #12 ("I feel that Asimov is an appropriate name for a space station or something like that."): Well, Babylon 5 did have Asimov class starliners... and the truly neurotic B5 fan knows that in one episode one such ship brought to the station the comedy duo Rebo and Zooty, played by a duo called Penn and Teller.
But yes, Asimov's one of those "sgnobh" authors; whenever you see a book of his you're tempted to pick it up and if you do *sgnobh* suddenly it's 2 a.m. and the book's gone.
Posted by: SaintStephen
|
December 7, 2009 4:21 AM
You literally read my mind, PZ.
I just praised Sagan and Dawkins on RD.net for being the greatest ever communicators of science, and it couldn't have been 3 hours later that I remembered "Isaac Asimov was a great communicator of science, TOO!"
It's not like I didn't read every single one of his books I could find when I was a teenager. His essay on exotic chemistries other than carbon-based ones -- that could possibly result in life on other planets -- is still fairly fresh in my mind.
And that was at LEAST 35 years ago!
What about Clarke? Too science-fiction-y for this distinction? He did dream up the orbiting satellite, didn't he?
Posted by: Christophe Thill | December 7, 2009 4:25 AM
Or we could say we've made some progress since Socrates...
Posted by: Garry Scholey | December 7, 2009 4:40 AM
Ranted by: pzdum
"we're pulling the plug on this piece of blasphemy called PHARYNGULA"
Who's "we" Mabus? You don't have any friends. Unless you count your imaginary deity and Nostradumass.
Posted by: SteveM | December 7, 2009 4:41 AM
Didn't Asimov and Clarke agree that as a science fiction writer Asimov was the better science writer while Clarke as a science writer was a better science fiction writer?
Yeah, Clarke may have patented the communication satellite but Asimov discovered Thiotimeoline.
Posted by: Garry Scholey | December 7, 2009 4:59 AM
“..that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong. “
Someone posting on the Febrile Nitwits thread makes such a claim to try to inject some uncertainty in the debate on AGW.
horace posted:
"Scientific opinion has been spectacularly wrong in the past. "
But what applies to scientific opinion can be equally applied to the poster of that fallacy. As human beings we've at some time had opinions that were spectacularly wrong. Therefore how can we be sure that any opinion we have, including the one about scientific opinion, is correct?
Posted by: DaveH frae Embra Toon | December 7, 2009 5:29 AM
Just chipping in to add my 2p to those whom Azimov inspired. I can truly say that reading his "Guide to Science" books in 1975 changed my life. I've still got the Biological Sciences volume, but lost the physical sciences one somewhere along the way (along with his science fiction). A lucid writer, much missed.
Posted by: Marie the Bookwyrm | December 7, 2009 5:44 AM
Many years ago, my sister and I had taken a trip to New York City. One evening in our hotel room we decided to look for famous people in the phone book. When my sister asked me for a name I immediately came up with Dr.Asimov. We looked in the phone book and he was listed! Yes, I gave in to temptation and called him. He answered the phone himself. I was polite, and kept it short, and I hope I didn't annoy him too much; but inside I was thinking "I'M TALKING TO ISAAC ASIMOV!!!!"
Posted by: Garry Scholey | December 7, 2009 6:22 AM
"Yeah, Clarke may have patented the communication satellite but Asimov discovered Thiotimoline"
I'm surprised that the woo beliver crowd don't wheeel out Asimov's fake paper on resublimated thiotimoline in order to justify their woo woo of the moment.
Posted by: Gary Allan | December 7, 2009 6:22 AM
I teach physics now and am in my 50s. The bulk the science and my interest in it were spurred by reading Asimov in many books during my high school years, so many years ago. Now that I know Asimov is online I may use his essays as part of the course I teach to spur my students greater interest.
Posted by: Flea | December 7, 2009 6:47 AM
Asimov was a truly great man. If you have not read his autobiography, "It's Been a Good Life", you really don't know what you are missing.
Posted by: Ray Moscow | December 7, 2009 8:07 AM
Yes to all the positive comments on Asimov, including his essay discussed by PZ.
His "New Guide to Science" is still in print in the UK, and it's still an excellent read.
I actually like his nonfiction books better than his fiction, but he was a pretty good storyteller, too. I remember one of his comments that he preferred writing nonfiction, but the fiction paid about 5 times as much per word (and he had to make a living).
Posted by: Robin | December 7, 2009 8:18 AM
@neotropic: Newtonian physics is true to the extent that it can account for the observable data (which is pretty well in most circumstances that we humans ordinarily find ourselves in).
Agreed - and if you plug c=infinity into Einstein's equations, they work out the same as Newton's. Saying Newton was wrong because of relativity is like saying Euclidean geometry is wrong because the earth is round.
Recently someone tried to sell me something by saying that "the old ways are Newtonian and the new ways are Einsteinian." This would mean that for all practical purposes the old ways are good enough and the new ways are unnecessarily complex (which happened to be the case, although it's probably not what they meant.)
Posted by: Chris | December 7, 2009 8:20 AM
That very essay was pivotal to my turning away from my religious upbringing.
I read the science fiction works of both Asimov and Heinlein voraciously as a teen. But Asimov's SF drew me into his non-fiction. And, as my mother later lamented, she "knew that reading all of that Isaac Asimov would come to no good." Happily, she was "right" about that.
Even though I idolized Robert A. Heinlein as a boy (and thought his story-telling was a little better), it was the death of Dr. Asimov that hit me hardest.
A tear still comes to my eye when thinking about it. I never loved anyone more that I never met.
Posted by: Blondin | December 7, 2009 8:22 AM
I will NEVER forget Asimov.
I was a sci-fi nerd growing up and Asimov and Heinlein were my favorite authors but it was Asimov's collections of scientific articles that first introduced me to skepticism and critical thinking. As much as I loved reading his articles the best part was always reading his little intro's for each article.
The first time I ever heard of Carl Sagan and his theories about the possibilities of life forms in Jupiter's atmosphere was in one of Asimov's articles. It was Asimov who first introduced me to Richard Feynman, too.
I'd bet that a great many of today's scientists and critical thinkers were fans of Asimov as youngsters.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 7, 2009 8:26 AM
A cogent statement. This scientist was.Posted by: Eidolon | December 7, 2009 8:41 AM
Just another science person who was deeply influenced by Asimov. His non-fiction was lucid and his fiction enjoyable on many levels. His 'Lucky Star' series were a great mix of good science and youth adventure. I know of nothing comparable for the 30% or so of kids who still read for pleasure.
Posted by: Jag | December 7, 2009 8:47 AM
I was turned onto Asimov by my older brother who discovered a collection of his fiction in the high school library.
I was only in jr high, but always read each book after he completed them. We devoured every book, only to hunger for more.
Posted by: charley | December 7, 2009 8:54 AM
I can imagine the Christians' response to growing evidence of a spherical earth. "Of course there is no doubt that microcurvature is real, but this macrocurvature theory is a ridiculous fabrication."
Posted by: JennyAnyDots | December 7, 2009 8:58 AM
Uncephalized, currently #19 (before PZ cleans up the troll droppings) - can't provide a link to all of them, but do have this one bookmarked - http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/azimov_creationism.html
Posted by: Thorne | December 7, 2009 9:05 AM
His essays were at least partly responsible for my rejection of woo and acceptance of rationality. "The Relativity of Wrong" has long been one of my favorites, and his "Worlds in Confusion", debunking Velikovsky, continues to bring tears (of laughter) to my eyes.
I miss him.
Posted by: Elwood Herring | December 7, 2009 9:12 AM
This post has persuaded me to come out of a protracted lurk mode to salute my hero Dr. A. His books are always a joy to read; his writing style was never turgid or condescending but always clear and easy on the eye, explaining complex concepts in an easy-going and friendly style, which is why I managed to amass a shelf-full of his books during my teens. Whatever he wanted to write about I wanted to read; his name on the cover was a guarantee that the buying price was worth every penny. I was gutted when I heard that he had died, and such a pointless death too. One of the greatest thinkers of our time, up there with Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman.
Posted by: DaveX | December 7, 2009 9:24 AM
Just dropping in to mention that I never forgot Asimov either-- if there's one author I'm perpetually pushing my daughter to read, it's him. I've more of a fondness for his short stories than anything, but his essays are often a delight as well. For aspiring writers, his economy and clarity are a real marvel.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | December 7, 2009 9:31 AM
Whenever I played the game of "Win a Day with Anyone you Want", I always waffled between Asimov & Sagan. Sigh, that now I shall never meet them in the flesh but only in their words.
Posted by: Sean McCorkle
|
December 7, 2009 9:39 AM
Not me! My friends have all heard me say this a million times: we need more popular science writers these days who do what Asimov did: explain, in depth, the details of scientific subjects for general audience. Too many writers today rely on crappy metaphors as a substitute for in-depth understanding.
One of my favorite examples is his explanation of how Cassini's and other divisions in Saturn's Rings are caused by resonances (Asimov on Astronomy). He could be counted on to give the reader an understanding of the physics underlying the phenomenon or process, and was always a pleasure to read.
Posted by: Sophie Lagacé | December 7, 2009 10:01 AM
Oh, I'm so glad you talked about Asimov's essays! That's the stuff I read in my teen years, and I liked them even better than his science fiction. I remember one that really marked me, talking about why the mass culture disdain for science and learning was so dangerous. I've been wanting to dig it up and re-read it, but I'll probably be very depressed.
Posted by: Sorbet | December 7, 2009 10:17 AM
Asimov was an atheist and a skeptic and his writings criticizing religion and creationism were incisive and superb. For example see his essays in his collection "The Roving Mind".
Posted by: Chris | December 7, 2009 10:27 AM
I keep "The Relativity of Wrong" hanging by desk! Wonderful essay.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | December 7, 2009 10:33 AM
Of course everybody forgets about Isaac Asimov. His writing earned him an apartment overlooking Central Park and a trunkful of honorary doctorates. How could [cough] Mooney [cough] claim that we persecute science popularizers if Asimov were his data point?
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 7, 2009 10:36 AM
Yay Asimov. Great man. I still have a copy of "In the beginning" on a shelf somewhere.
@29: What do you mean by "a reversion from a round earth to a flat one"? I hope you haven't bought that story about Columbus having to argue against flat-earthers- it's completely fictional. Read Dante's Inferno: his Satan sits at the exact centre of the spherical earth, and the earthly paradise is antipodal to Jerusalem.
Posted by: Menyambal | December 7, 2009 11:04 AM
Yeah, Columbus was just barking. The rest of the peole knew that the world was spherical, and had a dsmn good idea of its size. Columbus was convinced that the world was much smaller, and was wrong.
Although, as has been pointed out elsewhere, in most people's lives, flat is a perfectly workable model. It's kind of like how we are the first generation to ever notice the speed of light in our daily lives--that little delay between TV news reporters--but we don't really even understand or care.
Posted by: Rob Czar | December 7, 2009 11:08 AM
It is humorous to think an English major would presume to tell Asimov anything (including about English literature).
The key point is that there is such a thing as right and wrong (or more specifically rightness and wrongness). Many people from the humanities act and talk as if everything is equally right/wrong. That is not the perspective of science. I don't think many people would like to think that it is equally likely that a bridge will fall or not. So, we rely on science, not philosophy, when building bridges.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | December 7, 2009 11:19 AM
I think the day before yesterday I felt PZ's statement "..What a mindless slug like Trichoplax uses these proteins for is secretion: it makes digestive enzymes, not neurotransmitters, and sprays them out onto the substrate to dissolve its food." in his excellent discussion of exaptation was a "fact".
But heck - now I know I just think it is probably as PZ described but really is not fact in any official sense. I was educated - I was provided new insights that made sense too - I had to downgrade my simple "total" acceptance to "could very well be".
This gave me a good feeling. The uncertainty of things and the demands that we recognize the fluid nature of knowledge and conclusions are what excites me about science. The fun is in the run!
People that want things black and white especially in areas that obviously have expanding knowledge daily seem so missing the spice of life. I am 100% atheist but I wonder why believers think their almighty loving god would want to deny us the pleasure of discovering the awesome details of his handiwork. If it is because we cannot handle it then why did this god offer us the method and means to discover it (our well developed brain) and freewill? Does he not trust our basic nature which to me is basically empathetically altruistic?
Posted by: Ira Rosofsky | December 7, 2009 11:38 AM
The search for scientific understanding is not an infinite quest. And not everything we discovered centuries ago is wrong today. Newton's physics will get you to the moon every time. His laws are still part of the science curriculum, and are easily reconcilable with relativity. Centuries from now natural selection will be as true as today or back then. I doubt we are going to overturn Boyle's law, and the atomic number of hydrogen will always be 1.
The scientific approach just got going recently, and since we abandoned religion or metaphysical explanation, what's scientifically true, remains true.
There will be an end to science.
Then we can all write poetry or be engineers.
Posted by: Loren Petrich
|
December 7, 2009 11:39 AM
Isaac Asimov was a great writer, but he wasn't as visually charismatic as Carl Sagan or Richard Feynman had been.
He was also averse to traveling, and he was afraid of flying. He liked being in his office, and described himself as having claustrophilia.
I think that it would be VERY nice of his estate to republish his science-essay collections. I remember enjoying them a LOT, and I don't appreciate them being in the legal limbo of being out of print but under copyright.
Posted by: kopd | December 7, 2009 11:42 AM
Charley: Good point and I love that quote. I might use it sometime. I never realized how well a tangent line could work as an illustration for evolution.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 7, 2009 11:53 AM
@64: I find it totally implausible that we'll ever run out of things to investigate.
Posted by: Lynn Wilhelm
|
December 7, 2009 12:00 PM
Thanks for this PZ.
Now a question someone might be able to answer.
In Asimov's mag--probably the mid 80s--there was a story with a female character who became enamored of the earth--and "he" seemed to be with her. Phallic mushrooms and other things convinced her the earth was male. She began to work hard to "save the earth" as an environmentalist. Events happened that led her to the Arctic (I think) where other items the earth loved were collecting. Then the earth freed itself from it's mother (the sun) to take off into the universe. Of couse, we know what happened to the woman then. Cool story, it made one think about what "saving the earth" really means. You know life's such a tiny part of "The Earth".
Anyway, I'd love to find out who was the author of that story.
By the way, I had a cat named Azazel (and another named Sagan).
Posted by: Ira Rosofsky | December 7, 2009 12:00 PM
@67
Filling in details. Relative to us the universe is a big place, but there will be an end to major theory.
Posted by: Steve | December 7, 2009 12:10 PM
I've known, and appreciated, Asimov primarily for his fiction and only recently "discovered" his non-fiction. So I'm grateful to have this essay pointed out to me. What I find interesting here is that what he is describing is an almost "evolutionary" trend in Science towards a better or perhaps more precise understanding of our universe. Even the fact that Science occasionally takes a wrong turn like phrenology, or vacillates as between flat/ round earth fits well into this notion.
Posted by: Tom G | December 7, 2009 12:27 PM
Late to post, but wanted to add:
I had the great honor of meeting Dr. Asimov in 1988 at the New Orleans Worldcon. Several years later, I was on my way to work when I heard that he had just passed away. A co-worker who I knew was a fundamentalist Christian happened to see that my eyes were wet that morning and asked me why.
After I told him, his response was....
"Was Asimov an atheist?" When I replied that he was, the only response I got was "Then he's in hell."
Not a single indication of compassion for the loss of a great author and scientist. Just the stark reminder of how completely insensitive many Christians can be.
Posted by: mothra | December 7, 2009 12:40 PM
I started with Asimov's Foundation series and continued on to his science essays and books. Isaac's only 'sin' was to die before the proliferation of modern media. He is only remembered by those who can read.
@41 Unless his two volume earlier autobiography has been re-issued as an omnibus volume under the title of 'It's been a good life' his autobiographies are:
'In memory yet green' and 'In joy still felt' which were both chronological in format. His final 'I Asimov' autobigorahy was a series of vignettes, each one a chronology of his experiences or recollections of people or events.
Posted by: mothra | December 7, 2009 12:45 PM
@68 the author was Raccona Sheldon (aka James Tiptree Jr and the story was Her smoke rises up forever.
Posted by: Steve | December 7, 2009 12:47 PM
Tom G, your story is sad. I have dealt with such religiots, who in particular told my children that they were destined for hell. Over time I have come to pity them. They live in a small crude reality and under constant threat of eternal peril. To me, they are already in hell.
Posted by: sailor | December 7, 2009 1:17 PM
The Greeks knew the world was round and measured it with fair degree of accuracy in Alexandria.
http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/erat.htm
Posted by: furr-a-bruin
|
December 7, 2009 1:49 PM
Actually - when thinking about popularizers of science, the Good Doctor is the first to come to my mind.
And in a similar vein to the essay referenced, one of my favorite quotes of Dr. A's is:
Posted by: John Marley | December 7, 2009 2:23 PM
I think that's because most people know him as a science-fiction writer, and are unaware that he was a scientist.
My 9th grade science teacher was a huge fan and always referred to him as "the good Doctor." He (my teacher, not Asimov) also gave me Asimov's book, Please Explain, (for some achievement or other) in which Asimov answers science questions people sent him. 20+ years later, I still have it.
Posted by: Knockgoats | December 7, 2009 2:37 PM
Isa Rosovsky,
There will be an end to science.
How do you think you know that?
Then we can all write poetry or be engineers.
Or mathematicians.
Posted by: Sastra | December 7, 2009 3:04 PM
I have this quote printed out and taped onto the railing in front of the little treadmill in my basement:
" I stand foursquare for reason, and object to what seems to me to be irrationality, whatever the source. If you are on my side in this, I must warn you that the army of the night has the advantage of overwhelming numbers, and, by its very nature, is immune to reason, so that it is entirely unlikely that you and I can win out. We will always remain a tiny and probably hopeless minority, but let us never tire of presenting our view, and of fighting the good fight for the right." -- Isaac Asimov
Keep going...
Posted by: rystefn.wordpress.com
|
December 7, 2009 3:15 PM
Isaac Asimov was a great writer, but he wasn't as visually charismatic as Carl Sagan or Richard Feynman had been.
I deny it. The man had the most righteous sideburns ever worn by a human person.
Posted by: amphiox | December 7, 2009 3:21 PM
"To make a nice story, developments are strung together as if there were a smooth progression which was not the case at all."
It's a sawtooth, with steady rises followed by drops, followed by rising again. But for the most part the subsequent troughs tend to be less low and the new peaks tend to get higher.
And each civilization had its own sawtooth, such that the peak of one might correspond to the trough of another. So for example we might find that the Greeks discovered something that is lost after the fall of Rome, but at the same time, the Indians and Chinese also discovered the same thing, and they retained the knowledge at the time Rome fell. Then later the Chinese may lose soemthing, but Renaissance Europeans manage to retain it, and so on.
I wonder if we had enough data to superimpose all the sawtooth on top of each other for every single social grouping of humans throughout history, whether we will, actually, approximate a smooth curve of steady progress or not.
Posted by: Dave M | December 7, 2009 3:24 PM
In philosophy we call this the "pessimistic metainduction": every previous theory was wrong, so ours is probably wrong too. The standard counter is the "optimistic metainduction": we found the mistakes in all those wrong theories, so if there are any mistakes in this one, we'll probably find them too. (This doesn't really solve anything though -- you still have to say what you think scientific theories do, and how we can tell whether any particular one should be revised.)
And just to chime in: I was a big Asimov fan back in the day, both SF and science. And he did indeed have most righteous sideburns.
Posted by: amphiox | December 7, 2009 3:32 PM
"There will be an end to science."
This prediction seems to be based on the assumption that
1. Eventually everything that can possibly be known about the universe will be discovered, hence scientific inquiry ends as there is nothing left to investigate
or
2. At some point humans will reach the limit of what our brains are capable of comprehending, hence scientific inquiry by humans ends as there is nothing left that we are capable of investigating
But this apparently iron-clad barrier can get broken if
A. In the process of obtaining new knowledge, new phenomena are continuously created as a result of that new knowledge that open up new, previously non-existent, avenues for further inquiry.
or
B. In the process of obtaining new knowledge, the limits of human understanding can be extended by the application of that new knowledge, thus allowing us to pursue scientific inquiry into new realms that we previously were not capable of comprehending.
The a priori likelihood of either A or B seems to me to be not so low as to allow anyone to declare an inevitable "end to science" with any certainty.
Posted by: wackadoodle | December 7, 2009 3:44 PM
I got a book from the school library once, yes afew Texas libraries haven't burned their books yet, full of essays Isaac Asimov had written on every subject from chemistry to history to cosmology. He managed to make even the most mundane topic fascinating.
I wish he were still alive, he'd be better than any living scientist, any living person, at smacking down the idiots who promote ignorancee and bigotry wrapped in superstition.
Posted by: Joffan | December 7, 2009 3:52 PM
Very clear and readable; I do enjoy Asimov's writing. And as I never tire of pointing out, the flat-earth model of reality is still in routine use on construction sites everywhere, whenever two verticals are taken to be parallel. Close enough for woodwork.
The idea of improving models of reality might also be a useful toehold for helping those who are persuadable of evolution. The fact that it's almost true that species reproduce "after their own kind" (heritability) is an essential component of the big picture of evolution.
Posted by: CortxVortx | December 7, 2009 4:03 PM
I picked up Adding a Dimension in a general store back in the 60s, which hooked me on science. I have since tried to collect all of Asimov's books -- which is a tall order!
Posted by: Wavefunction | December 7, 2009 4:25 PM
Asimov may not have had the eloquence of a Sagan or Gould (although he sometimes did) but his capacity to use simple language and explain the details with crystal clear clarity was unmatched.
Posted by: Robert | December 7, 2009 4:40 PM
Thanks for posting this. I had remembered the gist of Dr. A's argument but had forgotten in whose works I had read it. I've _used_ it in explaining to my twelve-year-old son why science is a good tool for understanding the universe, because new data that invalidates a previously accepted hypothesis typically results in a new hypotheszis. Or, as a lesser light somewhere put it, 'all models all false; some models are useful'.
This contrasts with, ahem, _other_ tools for understanding the universe, which never change their models despite new evidence.
Just so you know, my son has quite a taste for mathematics and science, which we (his parents) are doing everything we can to encourage and nurture. I told him once that I was very interested in science at his age, and only abandoned it (for history) due to my feeble grasp of math. He brightened, and said "But I'm _good_ at math - that means I can do science!" It was one of my proudest moments as a parent.
Posted by: ballookey | December 7, 2009 5:07 PM
One of Asimov's collection of essays on exactly this subject is titled 'The Relativity of Wrong' and was probably 33% of the reason I'm no longer a Jehovah's Witness. Another Asimov book gets another share, and Carl Sagan's Cosmos gets the final spot.
Posted by: minusRusty | December 7, 2009 5:20 PM
Reading Asimov is what made me realize I was an atheist at fifteenish. I was hooked on his science essays. Definitely a major influence on my outlook and pro-science POV.
-Rusty
Posted by: Dahan | December 7, 2009 5:21 PM
Another Asimov fan here. Started reading his Sci-Fi stuff in middle school, graduated to more non-fiction in high school. Loved it all.
Posted by: Dorkman | December 7, 2009 5:30 PM
Of course I knew Asimov had created the three laws of robotics, but I had no idea he had also invented the pwning of n00bs.
Slow clap for Dr. Asimov.
Posted by: curiosity
|
December 7, 2009 5:34 PM
I love Asimov's writing, although I find myself reading through his short story collections more often than his novels or non-fiction. He also wrote a few fantasy stories that are quite fun. What I like especially about his non-fiction is the way it projects a sense of fascination about the universe that makes you want to learn more and more and more - I feel, in a way, that I learned more about science from reading Asimov and exploring the topics he raises than I did from many of my grade-school science classes, which were generally quite dull.
Posted by: Athena | December 7, 2009 5:34 PM
Look for "Asimov on Science: A 30 year retrospective 1959-1989". An excellent collection of essays. Isaac Asimov was The. Best. EVAR.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
December 7, 2009 5:48 PM
In 1945 Clarke described the orbital mechanics of geostationary satellites and explained how a communications satellite in geostationary orbit would work. In 1965 he was invited to the launch of the Intelsat Early Bird comsat. At the social gathering after the launch he was talking to an Intelsat executive who told him that if he'd patented the idea then he'd have been paid $7 million in royalties. He told this story in an essay entitled "How I Lost Seven Million Dollars In My Spare Time."
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
December 7, 2009 6:03 PM
Asimov wrote my favorite science fiction short story, "The Last Question". The story builds artfully to its climax in the final two sentences.
Posted by: Rick R | December 7, 2009 6:04 PM
"The man had the most righteous sideburns ever worn by a human person."
His sideburns were outrageous, legendary. They deserved their own zipcode.
Posted by: Jacq R | December 7, 2009 7:04 PM
The article is astounding!
I am a big fan of Asimov fictions, the Foundation series shaped my understanding of societies as well as opening a love of scifi fictions.
And I knew that he wrote nonfictions - only that I never read them.
This article is astounding!
If he were living today - I would ranked him with Dawkins of physics (do we have such writers now ?)
Posted by: Sphere Coupler | December 7, 2009 7:13 PM
Asimov was my gateway to harder science, He was so clear and concise that it made me realise my public education was a farce...I'm addicted to science and the alternative/withdrawal would be horrible.
Excuse me while I online some Asimov.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 7, 2009 7:14 PM
That short story has been voted the top short story by SF fans at many cons. Great writing.Posted by: Ron Gove | December 7, 2009 7:39 PM
I started reading Asimov in 1954/55 in the 6th grade--mainly his "Lucky Star" series. I can remember checking the books out of the library, reading while walking home and being almost finished by the time I arrived home and ready to start the next one. I haven't stopped either. Currently re-reading the Foundation series for the nth time.
Posted by: SteveM | December 7, 2009 7:43 PM
Oops, coulda sworn he got a patent. But even if he had, wouldn't a 1945 patent have expired by 1965?
Posted by: Yahzi | December 7, 2009 7:56 PM
One of the best essays on epistemology ever.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | December 7, 2009 8:02 PM
mothra @ # 73: @68 the author was Raccona Sheldon (aka James Tiptree Jr and the story was Her smoke rises up forever.
Close, but not quite. "Tiptree" also wrote under the name of Raccoona Sheldon but in daily life answered to Alice Sheldon.
The title of her posthumous "best of" anthology was Her Smoke Rose Up Forever (also title of a story contained therein), which did not include the story you have in mind... and I think that is "The Earth Doth Like a Snake Renew".
Posted by: B.T. Murtagh | December 7, 2009 8:24 PM
Sagan got me interested in astrophysics, Fenyman in physics, but Asimov got me interested in everything.
He edited a little collection of science fiction stories (including his own "Pate de foie gras") with comments and leading questions about the science in them, called something like "Where Do We Go From Here?"; I became so determined to figure out some answers that I started sneaking into the adult section of the lending library, where I found such treasures as "Isaac Asimov's Intelligent Man's Guide To Science."
The library staff got so tired of chasing me out at the end of every day they contacted my parents, got their okay, and presented me with an adult library card four years early.
Posted by: B.T. Murtagh | December 7, 2009 8:41 PM
IIRC correctly James Tiptree's work was once cited by Harlan Ellison as one example of the kind of science fiction he couldn't imagine a woman writing, a year or two before it was revealed to be a pseudonym of Alice Sheldon.
Posted by: mythusmage
|
December 7, 2009 9:17 PM
I grew up on Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke. That right there should explain so much about me. :)
Posted by: Lynn Wilhelm
|
December 7, 2009 9:31 PM
Thanks so much Mothra.
I've really learned so much from Pharyngulites!
Posted by: ohioobserver | December 7, 2009 9:50 PM
Where were all you Asimov fans when I was growing up in a small town in the Midwest, reading everything I could lay hands on by the Good Doctor? My dad introduced me to his writing -- one of the best favors he ever did for me. Trying to explain Asimov to the rubes I went to school with was an exercise in futility, although there were some teachers who got it, and encouraged me to continue reading and pursuing science. I teach science now, and I have Dr. A's picture up in my classroom. Seeing all the Asimov fans come out of the woodwork, maybe it's time for a new billboard: "Read Isaac Asimov? You are not alone..."
Posted by: Lynn Wilhelm
|
December 7, 2009 10:16 PM
Thanks, too, Pierce @ 104.
That's the one. "The Earth Doth Like a Snake Renew", now I just need to find a copy of '88 Asimov mag.
I found it listed on the Locus Index to Science Fiction. That's cool--just wish it could link to the actual stories.
You know, I kept those mags for many years, but finally moved them too many times to justify keeping them. I've tried to simplify my like--but I wouldn't mind looking through them again.
I bet I'd really enjoy those old Martin Gardner columns.
I think I need to pick up some Asimov again. I'll try more of his non-fiction now.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 7, 2009 10:57 PM
That was Robert Silverberg, in his introduction to a Tiptree anthology, Warm Worlds and Otherwise:Posted by: Mark
|
December 7, 2009 11:36 PM
The Good Doctor was instrumental in "breaking the spell" for me. I was devouring his science writing long before I was mature enough to appreciate the cerebral nature of his fiction. Just in the last week I finished "I, Asimov" for about the third or fourth time. He has long been an inspiration to me for his love of learning and breadth and depth of interests.
One of the best descriptions of Asimov's science writing is found at the end of chapter 19 of Carl Sagan's "Demon-Haunted World" (D-HW) Sagan goes through a list of scientist-popularizers in various disciplines, like Stephen J. Gould and Richard Dawkins in biology and Steven Weinberg in physics (among others), and when he gets to Asimov, Sagan says: "Isaac Asimov wrote capably on everything."
D-HW was written four years after Asimov's death, but while he was alive, he acknowledged his friend Sagan by observing, with his characteristic lack of false modesty, that the only two people he had ever met that he felt were smarter than himself were Carl Sagan and Marvin Minsky.
I miss him. Though I will say that he was a bit of a lovable curmudgeon (would you believe I spelled that right on the first try!!!) and may never have had much of a web presence, even had he lived long enough.
Posted by: ArabiaTerra | December 8, 2009 1:15 AM
I've just finished reading all the comments here, and it has brought a tear to my eye (I am a little drunk).
Isaac Asimov was one of my favourite authors when I was a teen (in the eighties) and his science essays were inspirational.
There has been notone negative comment about the man which, considering pharyngula's diversity of opinions on any other subject, must be some kind of record.
He is sadly missed, and we need more like him.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | December 8, 2009 3:29 AM
True. But Harlan Ellison did, however, in his second Dangerous Visions anthology say that while Kate Wilhelm was the female science fiction writer to beat, James Tiptree, Jr. was the science fiction writer to beat (or words to that effect), making it very clear that to his mind there was no doubt that Tiptree was male.
There was a great biography of Alice Sheldon that came out a couple of years ago. The title escape me right now though.
Posted by: John Morales | December 8, 2009 4:01 AM
Yet another paean to the great man:
I discovered Asimov's SF in the early 70's via the Chris Foss covers to his books; from his SF I was drawn to read his non-fiction; from his non-fiction I became a lover of knowledge and skepticism.
Posted by: mythusmage
|
December 8, 2009 4:50 AM
Commenting now on the original topic, Asimov said then what I've been saying now on the subject of knowledge. Our knowledge is imperfect, and will always be imperfect. We cannot know absolutely, but only with a fair amount of certitude.
In short, we will always be wrong because there will always be someone to come along and come up with a better, more accurate explanation. And it was from people like Isaac Asimov that I learned this.
We are limited. Our abilities are limited and so our knowledge, our ability to know is limited. We can at the very best come very close to how things are, but a completely accurate description of reality will always elude us. That was Isaac's point, that is my point, so place not your trust in pundits and experts.
Bob Heinlein taught me to look. John Campbell taught me to question. Isaac Asimov taught me to accept my own limitations, and that others have limitations as well. Methinks the world would be a better place were more to learn those lessons.
Posted by: John Morales | December 8, 2009 6:36 AM
mythusmage,
Always? In every domain of knowledge, at every scale?
I doubt that.
Posted by: Occam's Machete | December 8, 2009 10:22 AM
Has the link been Pharyngulated?
I get just a blank page. :(
Posted by: Conan the Librarian | December 8, 2009 1:12 PM
I feel that the sideburns are still with us thanks to Burt Rutan.
And I just want to add my memories of reading anything I could find by the good Doctor (fiction or non-fiction) when I was a teenager. It probably explains a lot...
Posted by: John Morales | December 8, 2009 7:38 PM
Machete @118, I don't think so. Works fine for me.
Posted by: Carl
|
December 8, 2009 8:54 PM
@Lynn Wilhelm: If you like the Martin Gardner columns, you may be interested in http://www.amazon.com/Martin-Gardners-Mathematical-Games-Gardner/dp/0883855453 (a CD of the entire collection of Mathematical Games columns as PDFs).
Posted by: ivo.dellambrogio
|
December 9, 2009 7:34 PM
Xantief:
While we're waiting for that, there's the asteroid 5020 Asimov, Asimov Crater on mars, Asimov's Science Fiction magazine on Earth, and let us not forget the CSI's Isaac Asimov Award nor the Isaac Asimov Award for Undergraduate Excellence in Science Fiction and Fantasy Short Story Writing.
When I was a kid I read on the newspaper that Isaac Asimov had died, and I was very very sad. My granpa had to take me to buy one more of his books to make me feel better (I think it was Prelude to Foundation -- definitely not his best).
I happened to read this masterful essay, translated into Italian, a couple of years ago on l'Ateo, the Italian humanist-atheist society's magazine.
---
Is it just me, or aren't we allowed to copy-paste into the comment box any more? Are we supposed to copy web addressess by hand, as I just did (with probably plenty of typos)? I can't even move around in the test using the usual keyboard combinations...
Posted by: ivo.dellambrogio
|
December 9, 2009 9:35 PM
... oh, and we're forgetting Honda's running robot Asimo, although (according to Wikipedia) Honda claims it is not named after Asimov. Somehow hard to believe.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
December 9, 2009 10:10 PM
I think it's just you. I've sometimes had my browser get into a weird state where certain things didn't work, but quitting and restarting should fix it.