Talk:Reason (short story)

Asimov's point
I think the point Asimov was trying to make is that robots, as Asimov elsewhere states through Calvin, "Are essentially decent," and that it doesn't matter why a robot, or implicitly a person, acts decently. Asimov, who was an agnostic Humanist (in that he believed that there was either no God, or a Deist God, but in either case mankind needed to do things itself), was trying to express the universality of morality even in the absence of a common faith--a message we in the US could use right now.

I think the story summary needs a sentence or two stating this more explicitly.


 * We don't include people's opinions in Wikipedia; that's considered Original Research. If you find a printed citation, like in a book of criticism, it's likely that could be included.--Prosfilaes 12:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * shrug* I don't know if it's really original research... the meaning of the story is about as subtle as a sock full of pennies to the back of the head. But fair enough.

Comparison to Islam?
Should there be anything in there comparing CT-1's "religion" with Islam (from the story, the other CT-series robots say (while prostrating before a steam pipe or whatever it was), "There is no master but the Master, and CT-1 is his Prophet!"? Or is that also original research? --MicahBrwn (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought of this immediately, as in screamingly obvious, but WP:OR being WP:OR, and given other Wikipedia protocols we'll just have dig around for a proper Shahada citation. kencf0618 (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I've read the story every so often since the late 1970s (probably), and it never occurred to me... AnonMoos (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Link between robot "religion" and First Law of Robotics
The wikipedia page completely misses that QT (the robot) invented this religion specifically to subconsciously obey the first law. QT knew he could control the microwave beam better than humans. Inaction (not taking control) would have allowed humans to risk being harmed, but the human management did not yet allow him to handle the controls without interference. This was explicitly described near the story's end. The "religion" was just a means to an end - anything more is original research into the work of an author not available for interviewing.

This information should be added to the Wikipedia. -- of 21:10, 8 April 2009 68.50.112.195

Corrections?
I don't have a copy of the story, but think there are a couple of mistakes in the article. One, there was only one robot on the station, at least only one that was intelligent enough to devise the theory that man was inferior and could not have created robots. Two, once the crewmen realize that since the robot could monitor the power station better than humans, then all the human operators aboard the power stations could return home to Earth.Marzolian (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)