Past related threads:<p><i>The Relativity of Wrong (1989)</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24055125" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24055125</a> - Aug 2020 (2 comments)<p><i>The Relativity of Wrong (1989)</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17818069" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17818069</a> - Aug 2018 (11 comments)<p><i>The Relativity of Wrong (1989)</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13082585" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13082585</a> - Dec 2016 (16 comments)<p><i>The Relativity of Wrong by Isaac Asimov (1989)</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11654774" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11654774</a> - May 2016 (60 comments)<p><i>Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989)</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9629797" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9629797</a> - May 2015 (138 comments)<p><i>Isaac Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong (1989)</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1147968" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1147968</a> - Feb 2010 (32 comments)
I don't want to argue with Asimov, becuase I love his stories, and I loved this article both times I read it.<p>But there's something to be said for the math example, and I know I'm pedandic, but 2+2=17 is probably more wrong than 2+2=purple.. There's going to be no way to explain how you arrive at 17.. You can't argue it..
You could argue however that, "Oh, purple, sorry, well, four always tasted like purple to me, so that's the one I jotted down in a rush"
The thing that is missing in Asimov's claim is that is no scale to understand just how relatively wrong we are at any point, so we can only feel smug about how relatively wrong previous understandings are but to someone from a far more advanced civilization our most modern theories might seem like flat earth seems to us