G'day, fellow RationalWikians! Don't forget to visit the Campaign page of the 2016 Board of trustees election in order to make your voice heard. Suggested activities include:

  • Endorsing select candidates (lending a hand to your loyal henchmen and/or glorious overlords!)
  • Anti-endorsing select candidates (character-assassinating your hated opponents!)
  • Providing moar goat (please wipe afterwards)
  • Just asking questions to the candidates

Your participation might help other users better direct their votes. More importantly, it'll show the world that we've yet to go full Citizendium in terms of election hype!

from FuzzyCatPotato (Talk), group Site wide (urgent) at 00:24, 25 July 2016

Wronger than wrong

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of the series on

Logic and rhetoric

Icon logic.svg
Key articles
General logic
Bad logic
It’s a little wrong to say a tomato is a vegetable, it’s very wrong to say it’s a suspension bridge.
—Stuart Bloom, The Big Bang Theory, episode The Hofstadter Isotope

Wronger than wrong is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is asserted that different degrees of "right" or "wrong" are the same - a form of equivocation of degrees of truth.

The fallacy is a fallacy of ambiguity and an informal fallacy.


[edit] Explanation

The phrase "wronger than wrong" was coined by Isaac Asimov in The Relativity of Wrong,[1] (expanded and popularised by Michael Shermer, who called it "Asimov's Axiom".)[2] Wronger than wrong describes any idea that equates errors that clearly aren't equal. The example originally given is that a belief in a flat earth is wrong, but a belief in a spherical earth is also wrong (as it's actually a distorted spheroid) — however, saying that a spherical and flat earth are equally wrong, is more wrong than both those errors combined. Blurring concepts into the same category of "wrong" or "improbable", despite their obvious difference in the magnitude of how "wrong" and "improbable" they are, is an example of the continuum fallacy (the "fallacy of gray").

[edit] Importance

This phrase has important implications regarding the nature of scientific theories and aptly describes how the scientific method builds up knowledge and understanding — theories may change and adapt, but calling them outright wrong is not necessarily the right way to go about it. One reviewer of Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong asserted that such thinking was a great tool 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".[3]

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] Footnotes

Personal tools