I rather agree with this, having been doing some work recently on the historical development of some key ideas in seismology. History celebrates pioneers who got an issue right, but much can be learned from those who were what I like to think of as "instructively wrong" - those who made correct observations and inferred incorrect conclusions. Again I turn to Pauli's remark: the worst ideas are those that are "not even wrong".
Without a grasp of how current theory developed, and that includes the blind alleys that were rejected, one runs the risk of being blindsided by a student innocently asking "why is X not Y?", when you have always just taken X on trust as it's accepted as canonical.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tectonics & structural geology discussion list [mailto:GEO-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brandon, Mark
> Sent: 13 May 2011 01:58
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Discussions
> I think it important for all of us to keep in mind the many steps that
> have been needed to bring out to the current state of conventional
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC
is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents
of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless
it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to
NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.