3 ms·
If you're curious (as I was) the breakdown of these Nobel laureates is: 41 medicine 34 chemistry 25 physics 8 economics 1 peace 1 Literature A
by Godel_unicode 10y ago
If you're curious (as I was) the breakdown of these Nobel laureates is:
41 medicine
34 chemistry
25 physics
8 economics
1 peace
1 Literature
Average year 1998, standard deviation 11.4 years.
Tl;dr - mostly scientists, mostly still working.
- fovc 10y agoWouldn't a 1998 prize year mean that their major work was done in the 60s and 70s? The average age of Nobel laureates is ~60, which would mean many could be in their 80s now. [1] https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/laureates_ages/all_ages.html https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/laureates_ages...
- Godel_unicode 10y agoThat's a good point, I had remembered that age incorrectly as being lower. Is there a good source somewhere for mean time-to-nobel per field?
- fovc 10y agoI'm not sure about a quantitative source, but Wikipedia has a discussion on the subject [1]. There's a database [2] of all nominations, but it does not have the year of publishing of the research in question (if there is a specific item). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize#Recognition_time_lag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize#Recognition_time_l... [2] https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/archive/manual.html https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/archive/manual.html
- 13years 10y agoI find it a fallacy with these types of things where it is simply implied very smart people have this opinion and since they are smart, it must be correct. As an engineer in my field, there are so many specialized skills, even other engineers in the same field often are not qualified to analyze certain technologies without training, experience etc.