[c7b]

> I was pretty sure Alfred Wegener (...) is a Balto.

> Jasen would go so far as to argue that [some difficult achievements] makes [Wegener] the Togo

The more apt conclusion from the article is probably that the Balto/Togo theory simply isn't as good a model for the scientific discovery process as the author was hoping.

[hyperman1]

I think you have to read it more as a story than a theory, and also that the conclusion is more subtle.

My takeway is not that Togo is a better choice for the hero than Balto, it's that there is no correct choice. Balto, Togo, and a lot of other dogs were part of a group effort. Balto became the mascot. But humans need a simple story, so they confuse a mascot with a hero.

America is named like that because someone named Amerigo claimed columbus was wrong in thinking he was in India. People had to name it something, so they shortened 'Amerigo's continent' to America. Was he worthy to name a whole continent? Probably not, but still he has a continent named after him.

[c7b]

Ok, but that should just make us further question whether the Balto/Togo story really has anything in common with the history of tectonics. There isn't a clear obvious hero and a hidden hero (both of whom somewhat undeservedly singled out from the group effort), there's just one well-known name, and it's not even clear which of the two characters he'd correspond to.

[woojoo666]

I agree that the Balto/Togo story doesn't fit quite so neatly into the Wegener story, but I also think the article brings up a good broader point that credit is often given to people/dogs that seem undeserving when you dig a little deeper.

[c7b]

It is, and the phenomenon has a name already: c7b's law "every scientific discovery is named after the wrong person" (yes, that is the correct way to name it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy)