I would love to agree with the sentiment in that quote, but offhand, I can’t think of any examples.
Certainly the day-to-day job of the scientist is to prove himself or herself wrong in as many ways as possible, so as not to leave that job to others. But what eventually yields prestige is being right.
One possible counter-example I can think of is the Michelson-Morley experiment, the “most celebrated null experiment in the history of science” to quote one short-breathed biographer. But by several accounts I have read it only became “the most celebrated” thirty-odd years later, once the significance of Einstein’s work had sunk in. Before that it seems to have been possible at least to regard it as an anomaly to explain away, for instance via “ether drag” theories.
So even this attempt to prove myself wrong doesn’t reach as far as I should hope.
The first person to come to mind for me was Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege who is famous for basically inventing symbolic logic (specifically, predicate logic with quantified variables). He spent an enormous amount of time working on the thesis that the results of mathematics flow rather directly from little more than the rules of logic plus set theory. He aimed to provide a constructive proof of this thesis.
Bertrand Russell discovered a logical flaw (now called Russell’s paradox) in Frege’s first book containing the constructive proof when the second book in his series was already in press and communicated it to Frege. Russell wrote of Frege’s reaction in a bit of text I recall reading in a textbook on symbolic logic but found duplicated in this document with more details from which I quote:
As I think about acts of integrity and grace, I realise there is nothing in
my knowledge to compare with Frege’s dedication to truth. His entire life’s
work was on the verge of completion, much of his work had been ignored to
the benefit of men infinitely less capable, his second volume was about to be
published, and upon finding that his fundamental assumption was in error,
he responded with intellectual pleasure clearly submerging any feelings of
personal disappointment. It was almost superhuman and a telling indication
of that of which men are capable if their dedication is to creative work and
knowledge instead of cruder efforts to dominate and be known.
I don’t think science generally lives up to its own ideals… but as I grow older and more cynical I find myself admiring the mere fact that it has those ideals and that every so often I find examples of people living up to them :-)
Also, my understanding is that neither Michelson nor Morley ever stopped believing in a luminiferous aether and spent much of their remaining careers trying to show there was one.
I would love to agree with the sentiment in that quote, but offhand, I can’t think of any examples.
Certainly the day-to-day job of the scientist is to prove himself or herself wrong in as many ways as possible, so as not to leave that job to others. But what eventually yields prestige is being right.
One possible counter-example I can think of is the Michelson-Morley experiment, the “most celebrated null experiment in the history of science” to quote one short-breathed biographer. But by several accounts I have read it only became “the most celebrated” thirty-odd years later, once the significance of Einstein’s work had sunk in. Before that it seems to have been possible at least to regard it as an anomaly to explain away, for instance via “ether drag” theories.
So even this attempt to prove myself wrong doesn’t reach as far as I should hope.
The first person to come to mind for me was Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege who is famous for basically inventing symbolic logic (specifically, predicate logic with quantified variables). He spent an enormous amount of time working on the thesis that the results of mathematics flow rather directly from little more than the rules of logic plus set theory. He aimed to provide a constructive proof of this thesis.
Bertrand Russell discovered a logical flaw (now called Russell’s paradox) in Frege’s first book containing the constructive proof when the second book in his series was already in press and communicated it to Frege. Russell wrote of Frege’s reaction in a bit of text I recall reading in a textbook on symbolic logic but found duplicated in this document with more details from which I quote:
I don’t think science generally lives up to its own ideals… but as I grow older and more cynical I find myself admiring the mere fact that it has those ideals and that every so often I find examples of people living up to them :-)
Also, my understanding is that neither Michelson nor Morley ever stopped believing in a luminiferous aether and spent much of their remaining careers trying to show there was one.