Or even noticed? Sometimes a vague impression persists in society at large that science inevitably and linearly advances. Thomas Kuhn’s book, The structure of scientific revolutions, to give one example, dispels that impression. Progress much less resembles a straight path and much more resembles an ambling Brownian motion. History records numerous instances of advances ignored, dismissed, or ridiculed. Galois tragically died young, his work unnoticed. The physician Robert Mayer was only recognized later in his life for his ideas on thermodynamics. At least he was noticed in his lifetime. John James Waterston only achieved a measure of recognition in 1892, several years after his death in 1883, as a result of Lord Rayleigh’s efforts. Semmelweis encountered enormous resistance to his ideas on hygiene. Wegener’s work on continental drift was dismissed. The heliocentric model for the solar system languished for over 1,400 years. How many times have stories been told of seminal works only accepted after 10 or 20 or more submissions to learned journals? Most likely, there are many great scientific achievements available but unnoticed in every era. Could it be the case that what is accepted by consensus as known is only the tip of the iceberg? Is it much harder for a scientific achievement to be noticed, let alone recognized, than most people realize? Perhaps the hurdles are more significant than most people realize? Perhaps the knowledge finds its way into society’s collective store of solved problems as a result of unusual luck?

More Robert Shour's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions