I think this compares nicely to Asimov's essay on how wrongness is relative. In it he argues that as ideas become more accurate, it's not reasonable to say the

I think this compares nicely to Asimov's essay on how wrongness is relative. In it he argues that as ideas become more accurate, it's not reasonable to say the predecessors are simply wrong. Likewise, as we develop new ideas, the mass of invalid ideas is also a part of the foundation that holds up what we now know. To me, without the contrasting experiments and failed theories, our current ideas would seem suspiciously successful and lucky; but if we look at the mountains of counter-results and lame explanations, it's easy to have confidence that we're at least heading vaguely in the right direction. (And it also teaches about the hubris of just how much data can match an incorrect idea!) [0] http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm