Current Events > How do you deal with your hypocrisy and find peace in a gray area?

(+) Yeah! (+)

We're all hypocrites.

---

Ignorance is bliss, and as I am apparently too stupid to understand the question being asked so I am content in my own stupidity.

---

Don't tell scotty, scotty doesn't know!

---

Bah, I just draw my own lines and not overthink things. Best solution is to fully give yourself to Christ, anyway; I don't need to fear the dark side at all. But I can always repent later; Imma just pray things turn out well in the end

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Relativity_of_Wrong

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. For example, if a child spells the word sugar as "pqzzf", the child is clearly incorrect. Yet, Asimov says, a child who spells the word "shuger" (or in some other phonetic way) is "less wrong" than one who writes a random sequence of letters. Furthermore, a child who writes "sucrose" or "C12H22O11" completely disregards the "correct" spelling but shows a degree of knowledge about the real thing under study. Asimov proposes that a better test question would ask the student to spell sugar in as many ways as possible, justifying each.

Likewise, believing that the Earth is a sphere is less wrong than believing that the Earth is flat, but wrong nonetheless, since it is really an oblate spheroid or a reasonable approximation thereof. As the state of knowledge advanced, the statement of the Earth's shape became more refined, and each successive advance required a more careful and subtle investigation. Equating the wrongness of the theory that the Earth is flat with the wrongness of the theory that the Earth is a perfect sphere is wronger than wrong.

Asimov wrote "The Relativity of Wrong" in response to an "English Literature major" who criticized him for believing in scientific progress. This unnamed individual is portrayed by Asimov as having taken the postmodern viewpoint that all scientific explanations of the world are equally in error. Irritated, the rationalist Asimov put forth his views in his monthly F&SF column, and the result became the title essay of this collection.
---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wronger_than_wrong

Wronger than wrong is a statement that equates two errors when one of the errors is clearly more wrong than the other. It was described by Michael Shermer as Asimov's axiom.[1] The mistake was discussed in Isaac Asimov's book of essays The Relativity of Wrong[2] as well as in a 1989 article[3] of the same name in the Fall 1989 issue of the The Skeptical Inquirer :

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.

Asimov explained that science is both progressive and cumulative. Even though scientific theories are later proven wrong, the degree of their wrongness attenuates with time as they are modified in response to the mistakes of the past.[1] For example, data collected from satellite measurements show, to a high level of precision, how the Earth's shape differs from a perfect sphere or even an oblate spheroid or a geoid.[1]

Shermer stated that being wronger than wrong is actually worse than being not even wrong (that is, being unfalsifiable).[1]

According to John Jenkins,[4] who reviewed The Relativity of Wrong, the title essay of Asimov's book is the one "which I think is important both for understanding Asimov's thinking about science and for arming oneself against the inevitable anti-science attack that one often hears [that] theories are always preliminary and science really doesn't 'know' anything."
---