I need to read more Asimov
I've always felt that the "well, scientists were wrong about X, Y, and Z, so they're probably wrong about [thing I think should be wrong], too" argument was somehow fallacious, or at least irrelevant, but I've never had a truly decent rebuttal(*). But I stumbled across this bit of writing by Asimov by way of RationalWiki, which gives a really, really good response that shows why it's a fundamental misunderstanding of science as a proccess.
The money quote: "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if 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."
Our scientific knowledge of the universe is, of course, still somewhat inaccurate. That doesn't mean that we can't take pride in the fact that it's *less* wrong than yesterday, or strive to make it yet more right tomorrow. Science doesn't offer complete, pat answers; this is a feature, not a bug. There's still unknown unknowns out there, and that's awesome.
(*Except to blame sensationalistic science "journalism", of course.)
The money quote: "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if 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."
Our scientific knowledge of the universe is, of course, still somewhat inaccurate. That doesn't mean that we can't take pride in the fact that it's *less* wrong than yesterday, or strive to make it yet more right tomorrow. Science doesn't offer complete, pat answers; this is a feature, not a bug. There's still unknown unknowns out there, and that's awesome.
(*Except to blame sensationalistic science "journalism", of course.)