[arp242]

> going so far as to literally suggest his critic, refusing to accept any certainty, might believe the Earth could be determined to be a cube next year.

He absolutely did no such thing.

What you seem to have missed is that the entire thing is a thought exercise to demonstrate a point.

[somenameforme]

Quoting the paper, "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."

[arp242]

Yes, that is a thought exercise, or reductio ad absurdum if you want to be all fancy about it, not a serious accusation that they might believe the earth is a cube or doughnut shaped.

[ANewFormation]

This is one of the few times I would argue you're offering an unreasonably charitable interpretation.

It reads like a textbook strawman. Asimov's certainty on us 'finally' getting things, more or less, right was challenged. He then strawmans that into somebody claiming there is no such thing as being right, as the future might discover your views flawed. Asimov then procedes to tear down the strawman which he built, with a more than healthy serving of thinly veiled ad hominem and other fallacies enjoined alongside.

I suspect this is why our original poster linked to that 5 page essay instead of paraphrasing what he found so compelling. Argumentative fallacies can give the perception of being right, and even insightful. But in hindsight, it's difficult to say why or how.