From b8788c2a3d775829a8020b25c9fd13999eb2e479 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Petter Reinholdtsen Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 21:34:35 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Start translation work. --- Makefile | 7 + README | 10 ++ The_Relativity_of_Wrong.txt | 284 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ po4a.cfg | 4 + 4 files changed, 305 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Makefile create mode 100644 README create mode 100644 The_Relativity_of_Wrong.txt create mode 100644 po4a.cfg diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile new file mode 100644 index 0000000..736ae5f --- /dev/null +++ b/Makefile @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +all: The_Relativity_of_Wrong.nb.txt + +The_Relativity_of_Wrong.pot: The_Relativity_of_Wrong.txt + po4a-gettextize -f text -m The_Relativity_of_Wrong.txt > $@.new && mv $@.new $@ + +The_Relativity_of_Wrong.nb.txt: The_Relativity_of_Wrong.nb.po + po4a --translate-only The_Relativity_of_Wrong.nb.txt po4a.cfg diff --git a/README b/README new file mode 100644 index 0000000..018472b --- /dev/null +++ b/README @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ +Oversettelse av brevet «The Relativity of Wrong» av Isaac Asimov. + +For publisering på bloggen til Foreningen Skepsis. + +Kildeteksten ble hentet fra +http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm + +På forespørsel har Barry Karr hos The Skeptical Inquirer gitt beskjed +om at Robyn Asimov fra Asmiov-familien har gitt foreningen Skepsis lov +til å oversette og publisere en oversatt utgave. diff --git a/The_Relativity_of_Wrong.txt b/The_Relativity_of_Wrong.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e42c4c4 --- /dev/null +++ b/The_Relativity_of_Wrong.txt @@ -0,0 +1,284 @@ +From The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1, Pp. 35-44 +_______________________________________________________________________ + +The Relativity of Wrong + +By Isaac Asimov + +I RECEIVED a letter the other day. It was handwritten in crabbed +penmanship so that it was very difficult to read. Nevertheless, I +tried to make it out just in case it might prove to be important. In +the first sentence, the writer told me he was majoring in English +literature, but felt he needed to teach me science. (I sighed a bit, +for I knew very few English Lit majors who are equipped to teach me +science, but I am very aware of the vast state of my ignorance and I +am prepared to learn as much as I can from anyone, so I read on.) + +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. + +I didn't go into detail in the matter, but what I meant was that we +now know the basic rules governing the universe, together with the +gravitational interrelationships of its gross components, as shown in +the theory of relativity worked out between 1905 and 1916. We also +know the basic rules governing the subatomic particles and their +interrelationships, since these are very neatly described by the +quantum theory worked out between 1900 and 1930. What's more, we have +found that the galaxies and clusters of galaxies are the basic units +of the physical universe, as discovered between 1920 and 1930. + +These are all twentieth-century discoveries, you see. + +The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to +lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have +thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century +they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say +about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong. The young man then +quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the +Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. "If I am +the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I +know nothing." the implication was that I was very foolish because I +was under the impression I knew a great deal. + +My answer to him was, "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." + +The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and +"wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and +completely right is totally and equally wrong. + +However, I don't think that's so. It seems to me that right and wrong +are fuzzy concepts, and I will devote this essay to an explanation of +why I think so. + +When my friend the English literature expert tells me that in every +century scientists think they have worked out the universe and are +always wrong, what I want to know is how wrong are they? Are they +always wrong to the same degree? Let's take an example. + +In the early days of civilization, the general feeling was that the +earth was flat. This was not because people were stupid, or because +they were intent on believing silly things. They felt it was flat on +the basis of sound evidence. It was not just a matter of "That's how +it looks," because the earth does not look flat. It looks chaotically +bumpy, with hills, valleys, ravines, cliffs, and so on. + +Of course there are plains where, over limited areas, the earth's +surface does look fairly flat. One of those plains is in the +Tigris-Euphrates area, where the first historical civilization (one +with writing) developed, that of the Sumerians. + +Perhaps it was the appearance of the plain that persuaded the clever +Sumerians to accept the generalization that the earth was flat; that +if you somehow evened out all the elevations and depressions, you +would be left with flatness. Contributing to the notion may have been +the fact that stretches of water (ponds and lakes) looked pretty flat +on quiet days. + +Another way of looking at it is to ask what is the "curvature" of the +earth's surface Over a considerable length, how much does the surface +deviate (on the average) from perfect flatness. The flat-earth theory +would make it seem that the surface doesn't deviate from flatness at +all, that its curvature is 0 to the mile. + +Nowadays, of course, we are taught that the flat-earth theory is +wrong; that it is all wrong, terribly wrong, absolutely. But it +isn't. The curvature of the earth is nearly 0 per mile, so that +although the flat-earth theory is wrong, it happens to be nearly +right. That's why the theory lasted so long. + +There were reasons, to be sure, to find the flat-earth theory +unsatisfactory and, about 350 B.C., the Greek philosopher Aristotle +summarized them. First, certain stars disappeared beyond the Southern +Hemisphere as one traveled north, and beyond the Northern Hemisphere +as one traveled south. Second, the earth's shadow on the moon during a +lunar eclipse was always the arc of a circle. Third, here on the earth +itself, ships disappeared beyond the horizon hull-first in whatever +direction they were traveling. + +All three observations could not be reasonably explained if the +earth's surface were flat, but could be explained by assuming the +earth to be a sphere. + +What's more, Aristotle believed that all solid matter tended to move +toward a common center, and if solid matter did this, it would end up +as a sphere. A given volume of matter is, on the average, closer to a +common center if it is a sphere than if it is any other shape +whatever. + +About a century after Aristotle, the Greek philosopher Eratosthenes +noted that the sun cast a shadow of different lengths at different +latitudes (all the shadows would be the same length if the earth's +surface were flat). From the difference in shadow length, he +calculated the size of the earthly sphere and it turned out to be +25,000 miles in circumference. + +The curvature of such a sphere is about 0.000126 per mile, a quantity +very close to 0 per mile, as you can see, and one not easily measured +by the techniques at the disposal of the ancients. The tiny difference +between 0 and 0.000126 accounts for the fact that it took so long to +pass from the flat earth to the spherical earth. + +Mind you, even a tiny difference, such as that between 0 and 0.000126, +can be extremely important. That difference mounts up. The earth +cannot be mapped over large areas with any accuracy at all if the +difference isn't taken into account and if the earth isn't considered +a sphere rather than a flat surface. Long ocean voyages can't be +undertaken with any reasonable way of locating one's own position in +the ocean unless the earth is considered spherical rather than flat. + +Furthermore, the flat earth presupposes the possibility of an infinite +earth, or of the existence of an "end" to the surface. The spherical +earth, however, postulates an earth that is both endless and yet +finite, and it is the latter postulate that is consistent with all +later findings. + +So, although the flat-earth theory is only slightly wrong and is a +credit to its inventors, all things considered, it is wrong enough to +be discarded in favor of the spherical-earth theory. + +And yet is the earth a sphere? + +No, it is not a sphere; not in the strict mathematical sense. A sphere +has certain mathematical properties - for instance, all diameters +(that is, all straight lines that pass from one point on its surface, +through the center, to another point on its surface) have the same +length. + +That, however, is not true of the earth. Various diameters of the +earth differ in length. + +What gave people the notion the earth wasn't a true sphere? To begin +with, the sun and the moon have outlines that are perfect circles +within the limits of measurement in the early days of the telescope. +This is consistent with the supposition that the sun and the moon are +perfectly spherical in shape. + +However, when Jupiter and Saturn were observed by the first telescopic +observers, it became quickly apparent that the outlines of those +planets were not circles, but distinct ellipses. That meant that +Jupiter and Saturn were not true spheres. + +Isaac Newton, toward the end of the seventeenth century, showed that a +massive body would form a sphere under the pull of gravitational +forces (exactly as Aristotle had argued), but only if it were not +rotating. If it were rotating, a centrifugal effect would be set up +that would lift the body's substance against gravity, and this effect +would be greater the closer to the equator you progressed. The effect +would also be greater the more rapidly a spherical object rotated, and +Jupiter and Saturn rotated very rapidly indeed. + +The earth rotated much more slowly than Jupiter or Saturn so the +effect should be smaller, but it should still be there. Actual +measurements of the curvature of the earth were carried out in the +eighteenth century and Newton was proved correct. + +The earth has an equatorial bulge, in other words. It is flattened at +the poles. It is an "oblate spheroid" rather than a sphere. This means +that the various diameters of the earth differ in length. The longest +diameters are any of those that stretch from one point on the equator +to an opposite point on the equator. This "equatorial diameter" is +12,755 kilometers (7,927 miles). The shortest diameter is from the +North Pole to the South Pole and this "polar diameter" is 12,711 +kilometers (7,900 miles). + +The difference between the longest and shortest diameters is 44 +kilometers (27 miles), and that means that the "oblateness" of the +earth (its departure from true sphericity) is 44/12755, or +0.0034. This amounts to l/3 of 1 percent. + +To put it another way, on a flat surface, curvature is 0 per mile +everywhere. On the earth's spherical surface, curvature is 0.000126 +per mile everywhere (or 8 inches per mile). On the earth's oblate +spheroidal surface, the curvature varies from 7.973 inches to the mile +to 8.027 inches to the mile. + +The correction in going from spherical to oblate spheroidal is much +smaller than going from flat to spherical. Therefore, although the +notion of the earth as a sphere is wrong, strictly speaking, it is not +as wrong as the notion of the earth as flat. + +Even the oblate-spheroidal notion of the earth is wrong, strictly +speaking. In 1958, when the satellite Vanguard I was put into orbit +about the earth, it was able to measure the local gravitational pull +of the earth--and therefore its shape--with unprecedented +precision. It turned out that the equatorial bulge south of the +equator was slightly bulgier than the bulge north of the equator, and +that the South Pole sea level was slightly nearer the center of the +earth than the North Pole sea level was. + +There seemed no other way of describing this than by saying the earth +was pear-shaped, and at once many people decided that the earth was +nothing like a sphere but was shaped like a Bartlett pear dangling in +space. Actually, the pear-like deviation from oblate-spheroid perfect +was a matter of yards rather than miles, and the adjustment of +curvature was in the millionths of an inch per mile. + +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. + +What actually happens is that once scientists get hold of a good +concept they gradually refine and extend it with greater and greater +subtlety as their instruments of measurement improve. Theories are not +so much wrong as incomplete. + +This can be pointed out in many cases other than just the shape of the +earth. 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. + +Copernicus switched from an earth-centered planetary system to a +sun-centered one. In doing so, he switched from something that was +obvious to something that was apparently ridiculous. However, it was a +matter of finding better ways of calculating the motion of the planets +in the sky, and eventually the geocentric theory was just left behind. +It was precisely because the old theory gave results that were fairly +good by the measurement standards of the time that kept it in being so +long. + +Again, it is because the geological formations of the earth change so +slowly and the living things upon it evolve so slowly that it seemed +reasonable at first to suppose that there was no change and that the +earth and life always existed as they do today. If that were so, it +would make no difference whether the earth and life were billions of +years old or thousands. Thousands were easier to grasp. + +But when careful observation showed that the earth and life were +changing at a rate that was very tiny but not zero, then it became +clear that the earth and life had to be very old. Modern geology came +into being, and so did the notion of biological evolution. + +If the rate of change were more rapid, geology and evolution would +have reached their modern state in ancient times. It is only because +the difference between the rate of change in a static universe and the +rate of change in an evolutionary one is that between zero and very +nearly zero that the creationists can continue propagating their +folly. + +Since the refinements in theory grow smaller and smaller, even quite +ancient theories must have been sufficiently right to allow advances +to be made; advances that were not wiped out by subsequent +refinements. + +The Greeks introduced the notion of latitude and longitude, for +instance, and made reasonable maps of the Mediterranean basin even +without taking sphericity into account, and we still use latitude and +longitude today. + +The Sumerians were probably the first to establish the principle that +planetary movements in the sky exhibit regularity and can be +predicted, and they proceeded to work out ways of doing so even though +they assumed the earth to be the center of the universe. Their +measurements have been enormously refined but the principle remains. + +Naturally, the theories we now have might be considered wrong in the +simplistic sense of my English Lit correspondent, but in a much truer +and subtler sense, they need only be considered incomplete. diff --git a/po4a.cfg b/po4a.cfg new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b42d8f3 --- /dev/null +++ b/po4a.cfg @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +[po_directory] . + +[type: text] The_Relativity_of_Wrong.txt $lang:$lang.txt \ + opt:"-M UTF-8 -k 0" -- 2.47.2