3 ms·
While I agree with the "test of the time" point of view, I don't think the other part of your argument makes much sense: 1)better alternative model: generally
by nebula 17y ago
While I agree with the "test of the time" point of view, I don't think the other part of your argument makes much sense:
1)better alternative model: generally it would not be that hard to guesstimate the possibility of a significant improvement in the very near future. And even if someone comes along and proposes a better alternative next year, I don't think there is anything to feel humiliated about, as long as the original work that was recognized by the award is really Nobel material.
2) Disproving the original model/theory: Do you know of any theory/model in physics that was considered proven to be correct, and later disproved? improvements, enhancements, yes but disproved?
- DrJokepu 17y agoI concur, there's nothing wrong with gradual progress of course. On the other hand, about your second point, there are a number of such models. The geocentric view of the universe got deprecated with Galilei's discovery of the Jupiter's moons. More recently, I could mention the Bohr model (electrons traveling in circular orbit around the nucleus). It was widely considered as correct at the time and it was in accordance with experimental observations. However, the Bohr model wasn't improved (although many scientists tried to save it with extensions of some kind or other), it was completely dropped as it is simply wrong. It can be disproven by a number of different experiments. Wikipedia actually has a great collection of superseded scientific theories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories