Understanding the Concept of Wrongness

Are we ever truly right or just wrong? Isaac Asimov tackled this intriguing question in his essay "The Relativity of Wrong," published in 1989. This piece emerged as a reply to a letter from an English Literature student who contended that all theories should ultimately be expected to fail, echoing a sentiment shared by many.

Asimov’s response was enlightening: he pointed out that while people once believed the Earth was flat, they were mistaken. Similarly, the belief in a spherical Earth was also incorrect. However, he asserted that if one considers both viewpoints equally wrong, that perspective itself is even more misguided.

Michael Shermer refers to this as Asimov's Axiom — the notion that some errors are more erroneous than others, and believing that all mistakes hold the same weight is itself a significant error. In the context of a race, finishing second is certainly losing, but it's a far better outcome than coming in one hundredth.

Asimov expands this idea beyond scientific theories, drawing attention to simpler concepts like spelling. He posed a scenario where Alice misspells "sugar" as p-q-z-z-f, while Genevieve writes it as s-h-u-g-e-r. Both are incorrect, yet it's clear that Alice's attempt is more flawed. Furthermore, someone spelling "sugar" as s-u-c-r-o-s-e or C¹² H²² O¹¹ is still incorrect, but it displays a deeper understanding of the subject.

Asimov then transitions to mathematics, a domain where right and wrong often seem straightforward. He presents a hypothetical where Joseph claims that 2 + 2 equals purple, while Maxwell asserts it's 17. Both statements are wrong, but Joseph's assertion is arguably more erroneous. Conversely, stating that 2 + 2 equals an integer is indeed correct, while claiming it equals an even integer is even more accurate.

This discussion reveals an intriguing notion — while there are countless ways to be incorrect, some approaches might be closer to the truth than others, and there are often multiple avenues to being correct.

Consider the task of drawing the Earth: is it more accurate to depict it as a circle (or an oblate spheroid), or should one create a rectangle to visualize all continents, as many maps (and flat-earthers) do? If an individual traces tectonic plates instead of illustrating the surface, are they wrong? Is a simple dot that accurately represents the planet's scale among other celestial bodies also incorrect?

Asimov concludes by emphasizing the progressive nature of science:

“In summary, my English Literature friend, trapped in a binary world of absolute truths and falsehoods, might believe that because all theories can be wrong, the Earth could be viewed as spherical today, cubical tomorrow, and perhaps even shaped like a doughnut in the future. In reality, once scientists establish a solid concept, they refine and enhance it over time as their measuring tools advance. Theories are not merely incorrect; they are often incomplete.”

For further reading, check out Asimov's essay here, along with these related topics: "Believing is Easy, Being Correct is Difficult," "How Doubt Leads to Better Decisions," "How Does Your Gut Sort Fact From Fiction?" and "Is Overconfidence Tearing the World Apart?"