This was recorded in 1988. He also explains why some people who think that we should abandon science are wrong and how scientific worldview is the best.
Listen, I don't have to sell you Isaac Asimov, if you're rational enough, you already love him, if you're still not rational enough, AFTER watching this, then I'm out of all means of convincing you. BUT, what I want to sell you instead is, this interviewer, is absolutely fantastic! What a great interviewer, one of the best I've seen.
He really channels the Socratic method for sure. He's a little contrarian but only two try to bring out more truth. Then he stands out of the way and let's his guest set things straight.
You need to be more subtle. Going on a rant about the prophesied world ending scenario in the comment section of a video about rationality is a bit too obvious. 3/10
@jason twist rational according to OUR reality and our understanding or better understanding. It's not hard really. And if you are religious that's great and hope it works for you and anybody else who is. Only problem is no religion can prove they are right and can only go on faith and belief. It's not real l rational to believe something just because you were taught it and raised by it without good evidence.
in777sight Bible is fiction. Written by over 40 different humans over 1000 years. Faith is based on believing the impossible with no proof and refusing to examine those beliefs with rational thought.
@in777sight one last point : check the meaning of "score" ( 20 ) if you want , and consider who ruled the region where Revelations was written . Goodbye .
"a good impromptus speech needs three or four weeks of preparation". There is for sure a good script for the interview. He liked to point on certain things and the interviewer asks the proper questions, resp. criticizes the right point. You get the picture that he is questioned but in fact he leads the debate because it is most probably his script. Yes he was a clever lad, it's just never abuse it. It's an essential part of good sci-fi to convince with logic using conditions which don't have to be real but since the reader makes the conclusions they appear to him as real. The question is like always what is the goal of my writing (in this case). I can also abuse this fact, make it to a method to control people, an old i guess since we know spoken word practiced method to control the mass. Let the listener pretend it is his conclusion, his free will and he will give you his last shirt no matter if you wear fur.
I don't love him. What use is logic if his knowledge is so limited? His logical statements are extremely limited to his knowledge of the known phenomena. How can a newborn infant make logical statement on the workings of a computer. How can Isaac Asimov make logical statement about a universe which he knows so little about? He can't. His logical statements are extremely limited and confined to the 7 thousandths of one percent or whatever his knowledge is.
My first time seeing Asimov. So cool. Agreed, this interviewer and their constant euphemisms on mysticism, along with Asimov’s patience (they both wait for the other to finish speaking naturally - what a lost art) make this a discourse
@Duan Torruellas The interviewer is an idiot that hasn’t read a single page of Asimov’s work. He just made stuff up couched on his experience interviewing lesser individuals!
@Blake Puhlman " rational according to OUR reality" Human civilization is built upon non objective "truths" such as economy, social constructs etc...Gold is not more valuable then rock from objective scientific perspective but since WE value scarcity we pretend it is..."Only problem is no religion can prove they are right and can only go on faith and belief."Funny how you exclude philosophy, sociology etc...The go to philosophy for most atheists is humanism and almost the entire worldview of humanism is rooted in non objective made up values such as humanocentrism for example.Life doesn't have value, death doesn't have value, morality doesn't have value etc..."It's not real l rational to believe something just because you were taught it and raised by it without good evidence."Like economy, gender, social science etc...All of these things are about things people MADE UP.If atheists were honest with their "objective reality" they would be cosmicists which are nihilists on stereoids however since we humans are not robots we can never function on pure objective reality and the idea for that is pretty irrational from human biological and psychological perspective.
For yet another view, the interviewer is incompetent, stuck on dumb issues that are a waste of Asimov's intellect. I'd rather see Asimov interviewed by someone closer to his intellect.
@FRANKSNAKE71 And yet by faith in Jesus Christ we are saved. "Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?” She said to Him, “Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world.” " John 11: 25-27
And yet, for all of his logic, Asimov failed to learn the Truth. Funny that. 'For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness" ~1st Corinthians 3:19
@Chris Musix So true. While the man had many talents as a writer, he was like a blind man regarding spiritual matters. He did indeed contemplate God's creation, as a scientist, and somewhat grasped it's scope, but obstinately refused to acknowledge the creator, and the fact that man has a soul as well as a body.
Imagine having a good conversation like this with a friend. People who genuinely seek to know the truth without feeling attacked or anything. it's just so good.
@Question Everything Science & scientists know that their ideas are just close approximations to reality, and ever-closer every time that there is more data collected.It is up to the public to understand that, as well.
Uncertainty and victimhood?Historia Antiqua you are on point.How might this theory work ?Social identity movements (SM)have played a part in shifting the focus from redistribution politics of the post war,eg Keynesianism giving rise to a national victimhood mentality.So redistribution politics has been derailed by mass organised irrational SM demands. Nancy Fraser has put forward a compelling argument.EssentiallySocial movements have uncoupled from the labour union movement which has led us further away from redistribution goals and deeper into Inclusion politics.EgInclusion demands do nothing to help macro inequality bc it is not a transformative change movement.SM do not seek to change the underlying root causes of inequality or with it resolve the economic uncertainty of our globalised era..Government redistribution policy was over shadowed by environmental, gender and racial demands which in turn led to the further dismantling of post war social welfare benefits linked to class claims.Unemployment, public housing, the government's commitment to subsidize industry.In turn social movements and networking opportunities have increased via digital media and given rise to a splintering of disparate social movements and groups of differing self interest eg BLM verses proud boys.Giving rise to a new era of oppressive political correctness and tribalism .This has further reduced macro ideas of class and with it class entitlement. And any chance of wealth distribution. Habermas theory suggests that in the face of declining intervention by government self steering economic rationalist forces in the form of (the stock market and corporate profit driven logic which is adopted by the government) have taken control of the economic political agenda and systems within a liberal democratic capitalist system.Max Webber's iron cage of rationalist dark age takes form.Uncertainty is more linked to the cultural,political economy than scientist gives credit .So long as social identity movements dominate ,the government is held unaccountable by the society it serves.So Isaac and Antiqua are on track.People will go for certainty even when their wrong.
@Question Everything Obviously not. If you have even a passing interest in science (let's say you watch astronomy channels that present the newest papers/theories, like "Anton Petrov" or "SciShow" or - if you want some heavy hitting stuff - "PBS SpaceTime" ) then you know that one of the most reccuring theme of the videos is "weeeell, do you remember last year where we talked about subject X? Here is a new theory that seriously puts our previous theories in doubt". Now, if your "interest" in "science" is reading blogs like "here is the truth you are not being told-blogspot" or "NASA is run by the illuminati to hide the flat earth" then, yeah, you might think that Asimov was talking about "science".
@andrewxc1335 big business has "bought" science. That's why you can't trust what scientist say anymore. They will say whatever they are paid to say. Either that, or they do not get funded or published. It is very sad.
Listening to this conversation fills me with both joy and despair, the joy of a thoughtful, intellectual conversation and the despair that this is all but lost to America now. Given away cheaply for the false comfort of absolutism, populism, idolism and anti intellectualism. Also Issac shares a commonality with other science fiction writers of being lightyears ahead of his time not only in his own field but in many others too.
Well said, and this was before the likes of 9/11 conspiracy theories, COVID conspiracies and the ridiculous flat Earth nonsense.If Isaac was around now he'd be tearing his hair out at the beliefs being spouted on social media
@ReesSoft it really is everywhere through the very same technology science has achieved through. The issue with scientific advances is we are giving free platforms for more idiots to scream at. But at the same time internet is also abundance of knowledge and information. We truly never can make an ideal society.. there will always be a head to a tail. Is it a favourable balance ? No. But is it entirely changeable? no again.I mean Soviet union banned religion and anti intellectual way of thinking and ideolgies and focused on science and advancement but in the modern world they are evil enemies who fell. So in a world of blind the one eyed man becomes the freak.
i actually think that elder media didn't knew the extent to which stupidity could be so sold. we would, as he did, think we are doomed if we were in the 80's or 90's and saw the kind of entertainment and information they were loving to have, but if the media understood that ideas as Qanon and flat earth would actually thrive among the population, i guess they would have had it all day on. the cheapest entertainment usually wins society, but who would guess the cheapest information would aswell?
No just the Yanks, but the entire world. So climate change is real, covid is a dangerous disease, more blacks are killed by cops than whites, mohammendan terrorism is a threat..... sure we should debate these in a rational way, and not be closed down by cancel culture. This only leaves to conspiracy theories and people taking up the false comforts of absolutism.
@Gustav Albericchi Du Rocher I don't think a theory like Qanon could've flourished in the 80's. There's a fear that is, kind of paradoxically, caused by the abundance of information our modern society delivers every day. Qanon and other stuff like that is an irrational answer to those fears.
@taurtue i have a feeling that it would... But the main influence "under the spotlight"/"on the stage"/"behind the pulpit" was usually a minimally informed (so called) specialist. It wasnt saw as an option by the media to talk about the shape of the earth calling a flat earther to debate... And now we know that doing so would be felt as stupid even BY the VERY OWN MEDIA. Not that you or me wouldnt get baffled at it at that time, but IF the media gave space to them at that time, being it saw as a trustable source of information, I dont think that it wouldnt flourish. That was about flat earth theory... But qanon? Qanon is a variation of illuminatti - that had its space in the 90s parallel medias. Both "ideas" talk deeply to frustrated people... "I am a loser because there are people planning a future where good people like me cant win". Its an ego redemption. If media showed it under a good light, i cant understand why it wouldnt thrive in the 80s.
@observe out of the box People are just people. Often misled by corrupt leaders in Communist Nations, but you have personal issues if you believe that an entire nation is evil. That's just simple minded hatefulness nonsense !
@taurtue You are right. In the 1980s everyone watched the the nightly news on TV. ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS. No internet, full of misinformation.American's used to be able to share some common thread of ideals. Now, the internet puts MOST consumers into a pit of useless information, often created by fools and conmen, and the minds of Americans are wandering throughthe cosmos, starving for good and/or useful information.
Incredible that, when this was recorded, he'd had a heart attack, triple bypass heart surgery, and was HIV+ as a result of a blood transfusion during the surgery 5 years earlier. A real trooper.
Had not realised about HIV status. Actually despite him being one of my favourite authors growing up, never thought to read about his life! Catching up now.
So sad that he contracted HIV at a time when we couldn't do much to treat it. If he had been able to live a little bit longer, until the better treatments came along, he might have had many more years on this Earth. He is one of my favourite authors.
That was a different era. Smoking was everywhere. A potbelly was something to be proud of. Ppl drank so much that if someone was an alcoholic, you'd hardly know the dufference. Now, everyone is getting on the fitness bandwagon.
I grew up in NYC, and one day I was waiting for the 5th Ave. bus next to Central Park. I was a student at the Bronx HS of Science, and was a huge science fiction buff. I had read Asimov’s sci-fi books, and many of his real science books. Who should happen to come and wait at the bus stop? Doctor Asimov. I was thrilled. We began a great conversation on his books, on biology, biochemistry, and other topics. We got onto the same bus, and continued the talk till he got off, around 15 minutes later. He was down to earth, brilliant, and interested in my comments. A day I have never forgotten.
I heard him give a talk at Swarthmore College when I was an undergraduate. It was one of the best I heard in four years. And what I remember most was how good his jokes were!
My daughter married a son of his cousin (Much of the Asimov family moved from Russia to France,USA and Israel) being Chabad Chasidim as his family was. Chabad is a worldwide spread out Chasidic group based on LOGIC but tempered then to fiery emotions as a result of expanding and meditating on that logic)
Fantastic. i once had dinner with Arthur C. Clarke. i was a NASA engineer and he was giving a talk after an awards dinner. I sat about 4 chairs from him. It was a highlight of my life. (NASA Vendor's Day, 1972).
My then boyfriend took me to a precursor of ComicCon about 1968. We won a costume contest and my date asked Dr. Asimov if he would sign my costume. He signed my left hip -- having at first aimed higher but thinking better of it! -- and was just generally delightful and especially made the day for my boyfriend.
Yep, ok so I'm jealous of all the meetings mentioned here but particularly Asimov without doubt my favourite author. I remember when he died the emptiness realising I'd never read another of his works. Very selfish but genuine reaction.
@Scientific Humanist @Scientific Humanist Incredible story! I too wished I would have met Professor Carl Sagan!!! Fantastic that you received a response from Professor Druyan!
That is such a nice story and you are so lucky! I would've given anything for such an experience! I was driving home from work in 1992 and had turned on the radio in my car. I just caught the ending of a news story: ".... he was best remembered for his Three Laws of Robotics." I knew what had happened. At the end of the evening, when my wife and I hugged, I just started crying. From that day on, the world seemed a bit lonely to me, knowing The Good Doctor was no longer with us. I enjoyed his science fiction of course but my favorite books by far were all his science essay collections. I loved his writing style... it was as if he was talking to me alone in his books. He taught me so much. I was so inspired by his empathy to those not so lucky in this world. Isaac Asimov was just an amazing person!
That is awesome! I was close to getting into Bronx HS of Science but was unfortunately unable to pass the exam for it (at least to my knowledge, never knew how close I was) but I always felt similar about science and science fiction in general and learned about Asimov early on. I wasn't around during his time, but I was inspired greatly by him and Sagan to this day for imagination and craving for scientific knowledge, and Mr Rogers for emotions.
I have to put my 2 cents in here.even tho it's not really mine. I had a biology teacher in Jr. College who had dinner with Linus Pauling and his family at his home. She said he entertained everyone with these intricate toys that he had built and was a perfectly captivating host. The best I can do for myself, is having seen Sammy Davis Jr driving on the freeway in the early 70s with his wife Altovese! I was 11 and he waved at me from his Cadillac. He had a wonderful smile.
@Varga Béla Texas well, I’m really going to make you cry, but I went to Stony Brook University, and took an astronomy course called Intelligent Life In The Universe, using Carl Sagan’s book. He came down from Cornell as a guest lecturer for a few days, and I got to not only meet him, but was able to ask him many questions.
@Scientific Humanist well, I’m really going to make you cry, but I went to Stony Brook University, and took an astronomy course called Intelligent Life In The Universe, using Carl Sagan’s book. He came down from Cornell as a guest lecturer for a few days, and I got to not only meet him, but was able to ask him many questions.
I'm envious. I started reading this guy when I was 11 years old, and his thinking has shaped much of mine. This interview is wonderful, by the way. It's a far cry from the content-less soundbites and platitudes we're subjected to in the media, be they social or traditional, these days. Wonderful. His interviewer comes across as thoughtful and erudite, it's all very civilized. And it doesn't need to be done in three minutes. while selling a movie. I love it. And I am happy you got to have that bus ride with this man.
He was my father's biochem professor at Boston University. My father said he was an asshole. lol. (There's a long story behind that, by the way. He tried to flunk a whole class when they didn't want to show up for an exam he had scheduled in right in the middle of a popular sporting event on campus.)
@Daniel Gregg he was a SciFi writer instead of being a forefront researcher. He could have benefited many more people (in a more important way) with scientific research, instead he chose to be an entertainer. I remember a co worker stomping around cursing when he saw Dr. Asimov’s financial data in 1985 —-the guy was a lead in the workplace but was also an A-H.
@Hedgehog's Right of Passage sorry, but the concept of there being a creator of the Universe is an anthropocentric one.... Tsellim or no...... useful perhaps in partially rebuilding some aspects of shattered self-esteem, but dangerous as building on a Gödelian unproveable and un-disproveable concept can be a house of cards. Just because you aver something is built on logic and use capital letters does not make it so
@Linda Marion I attended a convention of a similar nature in Manhattan circa 1968-9.... the year someone costumed as “The Horda@ won for being a crawling rug :). Someone in line outside the hotel stated that Robert Resnick, the RPI (Renselear Polytechnic Institute) physicist whose introductory mechanics and electrodynamics texts many engineering and physics undergrads studied from was present, but I was not interested in being a “groupie” for him. My companion was an NYU computer science student who was a UNIX guru for Norway offshore oil rigs until his death in 2002. The hosting hotel may have been near 47th Street or nearby. My friend left for Norway in 1971 after lying to his draft board.
@Doug R. Don't be sorry. Respect to your opinion. I once shared it until age 25.BTW I have a married daughter Asimov. Her husband's grandfather is Isaac's first cousin by way of our Chabad Chasidim.
What a brilliant intellectual discourse! I wish these kind of conversations are shown in schools to teach kids on how to communicate without conflict, and respect your fellow human beings