I think the strongest evidence is that many other examples of Asimov,
especially short stories are cautionary and deal with hubris and
unexpected side effects.
However it's funny to ask for 'evidence' about fiction in the context
of "parodying rationalists". no? Since what would count as
evidence? Another, more "authoritative" literary interpreter saying
the same thing? Maybe a long time ago - historical statements seem to
carry more weight, as if people were wiser back then?. Or Asimov
himself? But don't they say, only bad writers explain themselves?
If you're going to make an assertion about the intent of an author's work, it seems like you should back that up with facts? Otherwise it's an "i think" or "it seems like" or "one could argue", isn't it?
The thing with art is, everyone is entitled to an interpretation. So any assertion about the intent of a work is subjective.
Interestingly, this continues to be the case even when the author states his intent plainly. Jonathan Blow's "Braid" is a great example of this: there are several different readings of the story, despite Blow openly talking about his intended meaning.
(I would argue that a text that only allows a single "correct" interpretation is an instruction manual, not a work of art.)
The thing with art is, everyone is entitled to an interpretation.
The statement that kicked this off was not a statement of interpretation, but a statement of fact: "Asimov wrote the three laws as a parody". This is a statement that has a true or false answer. You are free to interpret the story as parody and to try to find evidence in the text and use that to argue your point, and that is a perfectly valid way to interpret the stories, but tells you nothing on Asimovs initial intentions.
If you are going to say "The artist intended X when creating this work" then you're going to need evidence beyond the work. Just like there is no one right way interpret a work of art, you cannot use a work of art in isolation to 'prove' artist intent.
No, and the tone that you're making this assertion is laughable. You're saying a discussion in the realm of literary analysis and interpretation should be backed up with "facts"? And that statements like "I think" are out of bounds?
I think you were asked a good question. What would constitute "evidence", to you?
> But don't they say, only bad writers explain themselves?
...No? If someone says that, why do you believe them? That frankly sounds like a pretty stupid and lazy claim about the world. One of the most interesting parts of, for example, Tolkien analysis is his abundant notes and letters working out his intent and meaning.
I think the strongest evidence is that many other examples of Asimov, especially short stories are cautionary and deal with hubris and unexpected side effects.
However it's funny to ask for 'evidence' about fiction in the context of "parodying rationalists". no? Since what would count as evidence? Another, more "authoritative" literary interpreter saying the same thing? Maybe a long time ago - historical statements seem to carry more weight, as if people were wiser back then?. Or Asimov himself? But don't they say, only bad writers explain themselves?