What is the Relativity of Wrong?

[FallenApple]

I read the essay. It's a very interesting account of scientific progress. What type of scientific paradigm is this? It seems to have a very close feel to Bayesian Epistemology and/or Inference

Quote from Wiki

In the title essay, Asimov argues that there exist degrees of wrongness, and being wrong in one way is not necessarily as bad as being wrong in another way.

https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

 

[Rive]

What type of scientific paradigm is this?

As far as I know it's no paradigm. It is just an essay, where the 'better-and-better' is displayed in inverse manner.

The 'less-and-less wrong' kind of indicates the existence of something 'finally it's no longer wrong' type of TRUTH. But any such truth would have serious problems with falsification, therefore it cannot be considered scientific any longer. Thus, the 'less-and-less wrong' is not really used seriously. What kind of science would tolerate a non-scientific target?

 

[Dale]

But any such truth would have serious problems with falsification, therefore it cannot be considered scientific any longer.

I think this is a misunderstanding. Not being falsified doesn’t mean that you have a problem with falsification.

 

[Drakkith]

I agree with Dale. There's a difference between not capable of being falsified versus accurate enough to say that it's not false.

 

[jedishrfu]

As this essay is really about the philosophy of science and we don't discuss philosophical issues here at PF. I say its time to close this thread.

Thank you all for contributing here.

Jedi