科学与数学chem.tufts.edu编辑精选
艾萨克·阿西莫夫：错误的相对性（1989）
Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989)
2015 — 2018，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
艾萨克·阿西莫夫1989年发表的随笔《错误的相对性》，以地球形状为例说明科学理论并非简单的对错二分，而是从“平地说”到“球形说”再到“椭球说”，每一步都只是“不那么错”。文章反驳了“科学总是错的”这种相对主义观点，强调科学在逐步逼近真理。
为什么经久不衰：它以通俗生动的例子澄清了科学进步的本质，对科学怀疑论和相对主义是有力回应，阿西莫夫的文笔让这一哲学讨论历久弥新。
HN 评论精选
批评阿西莫夫过于乐观，科学史上存在彻底反转而非渐进修正，科学共识也曾完全错误。
这很有趣，但阿西莫夫论证中的关键术语很模糊，而且他对科学史的考察非常选择性。科学倾向于“更对”（或“更少错”）的观点大致正确，因为科学在经验上是保守的：当理论B取代理论A时，B通常能解释A所解释的大部分或全部数据。然而，看科学理论的实际内容，彻底改变和完全反转相当常见。例如，病菌学说和大陆漂移说与它们的前身几乎没有相似之处；卢瑟福的原子模型不是“葡萄干布丁模型”的小修小补；相对论时空几乎与绝对时空截然相反；宇宙在时间上有开端的论点正是其反面的否定。最后一个例子大概是最好的：科学共识在不同时期曾明确支持或反对稳恒态模型。所以我们知道，科学共识在这个问题上有时就是完全错误的。
foldr查看英文原文
This is amusing, but the key terms in Asimov's argument are ambiguous, and he's taking a very selective look at the history of science. The position that science edges gradually towards theories that are "more right" (or "less wrong") is roughly correct in the sense that science tends to be empirically conservative. That is, when scientists replace theory A with theory B, it's generally the case that theory B accounts for most or all of the data that theory A accounted for. However, if we look at the actual content of scientific theories, it's clear that radical change and total reversal are quite common. E.g., the germ theory of disease and the theory of continental drift bear little resemblance to their predecessors; Rutherford's model of the atom is not a minor revision of the "plum pudding model"; a relative space-time is very nearly the opposite of an absolute space and time; and the thesis that the universe has a beginning in time is the negation of the thesis that it does not. The last example is probably the best one. At various times, the scientific consensus has been clearly for or against steady state models. So we know that the scientific consensus on that issue has simply been flat out wrong at one time or another. Of course, there are many areas where we do expect progress to be conservative. So for example, we are not going to discover that DNA does not actually exist, or that the Earth is larger than the Sun. But on some issues it is reasonable to assume that the scientific consensus is quite likely to undergo radical revision. As Scott Adams points out in an article that someone else linked to here, the science of diet and exercise is a case in point. So to my mind, it all depends on the particular issues that Asimov's lazy caricature had in mind. If the "Eng Lit major" was expressing skepticism about, say, the age of the Earth, or the atomic theory of matter, then Asimov's response would be a fair one. If they had something else in mind, then perhaps not.
指出文章是科学实在论论点的清晰表述，并推荐了进一步阅读的学术资源。
这是对科学哲学和科学实在论中一个基本论点/反论点的精彩陈述。如果想读更多，可以沿着斯坦福哲学百科这篇文章的引用继续查找。
hyperpape查看英文原文
This is a nicely written statement of one of the basic points/counterpoints in the philosophy of science and scientific realism. If you want to read more, you can probably find more by chasing citations from this Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/#PesInd.
将科学中的悲观归纳类比到道德进步，提出道德观念是否也像科学理论一样收敛的疑问。
我记得在哲学课上读过这个话题，即“悲观归纳”。我一直在想，类似的论证是否也适用于道德进步。当然，很多人会迅速提出类似的怀疑论论证，指出过去人们的道德观与我们现在不同，而且他们当时也同样自信自己是对的。如果我们考察道德惯例的历史，会发现它像科学理论那样收敛吗？（历史的弧线会向正义弯曲吗？）
Buldak查看英文原文
I remember reading about this topic in philosophy class, namely, the Pessimistic Induction [1]. I've wondered if a similar argument could be made for moral progress. Certainly, many people are quick to make similarly skeptical arguments which point out that people in the past had different moral views than we do now, and no less confidence that they were right. If we were to survey the history of moral conventions, would we find that it converges in the same way as our scientific theories? (Does the arc of history bend toward justice?) [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/#PessIndu
引用文章开头，总结科学家的态度：只在乎观点本身而非权威，并坦然承认无知。
前几天我收到一封信。信是手写的，字迹潦草难辨。但我还是试着辨认，以防它很重要。第一句话，写信人告诉我他主修英国文学，但觉得需要教我科学。（我叹了口气，因为我认识的英国文学专业学生中很少有人有资格教我科学，但我非常清楚自己无知的程度，并准备向任何人尽可能多地学习，所以我继续读下去。）这里阿西莫夫揭示了科学家的秘密武器：想法的来源不重要，重要的是想法本身；不知道一切是可以的，甚至是意料之中的。
apo查看英文原文
I RECEIVED a letter the other day. It was handwritten in crabbed penmanship so that it was very difficult to read. Nevertheless, I tried to make it out just in case it might prove to be important. In the first sentence, the writer told me he was majoring in English literature, but felt he needed to teach me science. (I sighed a bit, for I knew very few English Lit majors who are equipped to teach me science, but I am very aware of the vast state of my ignorance and I am prepared to learn as much as I can from anyone, so I read on.) Here Asimov reveals the scientist's secret weapons: - The source of an idea doesn't matter, only the idea itself. - It's ok, even expected, to not know everything.
历次讨论
同类还值得读
如果月球只有 1 像素：一个极其精确的太阳系模型（2014）
If the moon were only 1 pixel: A tediously accurate solar system model (2014)
一个网页版太阳系模型，以“如果月亮只有 1 像素”的真实比例呈现：你必须一路横向滚动，才能体会行星之间空旷到何等程度。
科学与数学上首页 7 次 · 2014–2025joshworth.com编辑精选沉浸式线性代数（2016）
Immersive Linear Algebra (2016)
《Immersive Linear Algebra》是一本完全免费、开放在线的线性代数“超文本教科书”，其最大特色是大量可交互的图形：读者可以直接拖动、操作图中的向量、矩阵和变换…
科学与数学上首页 5 次 · 2015–2024immersivemath.com编辑精选如何将贝果切成两个相连的半环（2009）
How to Slice a Bagel into Two Linked Halves (2009)
数学家 George Hart 的经典教程，演示如何用一刀把贝果切成两个相互扣住的环，并附上切割步骤与数学原理。
科学与数学上首页 5 次 · 2009–2022georgehart.com“犹太问题”：一组用于歧视的数学题
Jewish problems
一篇 arXiv 论文，整理并讨论苏联时期犹太学生在申请大学数学系时被问到的特殊数学难题：这些题往往有简单解法却极难想到，被用作面试中拒绝犹太考生的手段。
科学与数学上首页 5 次 · 2011–2021arxiv.org你的身体并非为长久而造：人类死亡率数据的一课
Your body wasn’t built to last: a lesson from human mortality rates
文章从人类死亡率随年龄变化的统计规律出发，解释身体并非为长久使用而设计：年轻时死亡风险较低，之后随年龄近似指数上升，像复杂系统在不断累积损伤。
科学与数学上首页 5 次 · 2009–2018gravityandlevity.wordpress.com