I hope people actually read the article, because it's actually a counter to the old argument that 'well, everything we USED to think is wrong, so everything we think TODAY is wrong too'.
It's a good find, and (as one would expect from Asimov) very realistic and positive about the scientific process, which is basically a way to steadily make things less incorrect.
I read the article and I actually strongly disagree with Asimov here, not because he's wrong (he isn't) nor because I'm a fan of English lit majors (I'm not), but because Asimov doesn't seem to be treating this guy fairly. He transforms the English lit guy's argument into a straw man, demolishes the straw man, then at the conclusion of the letter ends up agreeing with the guy after all.
Look at what Asimov says at the beginning of the letter: "It seemed that in one of my innumerable essays, I had expressed a certain gladness at living in a century in which we finally got the basis of the universe straight." It sounds like the English lit guy just wanted to say, well, hold on a minute; we might not have things as straight as you think. In every century, people think they have the universe figured out, whereas in every subsequent century, that turns out to not be the case. Yes, they have knowledge; yes, that knowledge is of great applicability and practical benefit; no it's never the whole story.
Asimov construes this as a binary right/wrong issue, whereas there's no indication that the English guy said that was the case. Look at his response: "[
I]f 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." That's putting words into the guy's mouth. And then look at what Asmiov says later: "In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after." This is a flat-out mischaracterization.
The other thing that Asimov mischaracterizes is the replacement of old scientific concepts with new ones: "Even when a new theory seems to represent a revolution, it usually arises out of small refinements. If something more than a small refinement were needed, then the old theory would never have endured." More often than not, the "old theory" continues to endure despite mounting evidence against it: it's not replaced as soon as it becomes obsolete, it continues to have its loyal adherents long afterwards. The history of scientific discovery usually happens like this:
- A new theory gains acceptance
- That theory is refined with additional data
- Even more data is found that "stretches" the theory somewhat, and has to be shoehorned in
- The theory is modified in different, sometimes convoluted ways to accommodate "edge cases" of data
- The theory is overhauled and replaced with a fresh, comprehensive theory.
This happens in science all the time. The study of combustion produced phlogiston, then phlogiston sources and sinks and dephlogisticated air, then oxidation. Astronomy produced the geocentric model, then cycles and epicycles, and then the heliocentric model. The study of light produced luminiferous aether before quantum mechanics. Newtonian physics gave way to relativity.
In fact, I am positive the same thing is happening today. Look at the problems we now have with gravity: we don't know the gravitational constant to the same accuracy as other physical constants; the "Pioneer anomaly" causes space probes to inexplicably accelerate at the edge of the solar system; the angular approach to the Earth seems to very subtly affect the strength of gravitational slingshots. And look how we've tried to explain it: dark energy and dark matter. Gee, that sounds an awful lot like phlogiston and aether. I'm certain that within the next hundred years there will be so many problems that we'll have to revise our understanding of gravity.
And finally, look what Asimov says at the end of the letter: "Naturally, the theories we now have might be considered wrong in the simplistic sense of my English Lit correspondent." He seems to tacitly agree with the English lit guy anyway, even though the view was only "simplistic" in Asimov's retelling.
Some things, such as mathematics, can be said to be right or wrong. All that can be said about science is that it is accurate or inaccurate. Asimov recognizes this; the English lit guy recognizes it too.
