2 ms·

The article mentions the methodology is unsound but says “it’s the best we can do”. It then discusses implications and conclusions based on unfounded claims.

The article mentions the methodology is unsound but says “it’s the best we can do”. It then discusses implications and conclusions based on unfounded claims. Prove that the number of Nobel Prizes is a good indicator of scientific process. It doesn’t even sound right when said aloud. To refine the point: The number of Nobel Prizes establishes a lower bound on the number of “Nobel Prize worthy discoveries”. That bar is ill-defined and constantly moving. What’s more is that many Nobel Prize worthy discoveries may not be awarded for a very long time. If prizes stopped being given to current discoveries and are all given to discoveries in the 70s and 80s then does that say anything about the rate of scientific progress or even large discoveries? No. We don’t know, with the information presented, if it is from changes in the community. What drives Nobel Prizes being awarded? None of this is seriously looked at. It’s the most important part of the article.

qayxc 6y ago
I agree that the metric they use is basically useless. One of the reasons the Nobel Prize committee tends to skip a decade or two, is that the impact of certain discoveries just cannot be assessed right away. If a discovery is made, but the test requires technology that takes decades to develop and build, no prize can be awarded yet. It was of course simpler back in the beginning of the 20th century, when unexplained observations were the test and models that could fit them could be judged right away. Particle physics, for example, has exhausted the low energy domain and there's nothing more to be found there. New discoveries would require monstrous machinery that takes decades to design, plan, and build. So to conclude that a decade was less productive just by counting the Nobel Prizes awarded to discoveries made in that decade is flawed. The "lag" just increases with difficulty so to speak.
erdos4d 6y ago
> The number of Nobel Prizes establishes a lower bound on the number of “Nobel Prize worthy discoveries”. No, it really doesn't establish anything. They give them out every year in predictable numbers, whether there is a big discovery available, or many, has nothing to do with that. In fact, I'd argue that the number of Nobels given out is independent of scientific progress, real or perceived.

qayxc 6y ago

I agree that the metric they use is basically useless. One of the reasons the Nobel Prize committee tends to skip a decade or two, is that the impact of certain discoveries just cannot be assessed right away. If a discovery is made, but the test requires technology that takes decades to develop and build, no prize can be awarded yet. It was of course simpler back in the beginning of the 20th century, when unexplained observations were the test and models that could fit them could be judged right away. Particle physics, for example, has exhausted the low energy domain and there's nothing more to be found there. New discoveries would require monstrous machinery that takes decades to design, plan, and build. So to conclude that a decade was less productive just by counting the Nobel Prizes awarded to discoveries made in that decade is flawed. The "lag" just increases with difficulty so to speak.

erdos4d 6y ago

> The number of Nobel Prizes establishes a lower bound on the number of “Nobel Prize worthy discoveries”. No, it really doesn't establish anything. They give them out every year in predictable numbers, whether there is a big discovery available, or many, has nothing to do with that. In fact, I'd argue that the number of Nobels given out is independent of scientific progress, real or perceived.