You bring up several interesting points, David.
To rephrase your qualifications for the selection process (tell me if I'm
wrong in this), it seems to be a matter of focusing on the actual
revelations of the physical and natural world (DNA, quantum reality, etc)
versus "bolt from the blue" creative (often theoretical) insights which
also fuel a deeper comprehension of reality (ala Godel's theorem and
Einstein's relativity). In terms of the exercise, your impulse would be to
preserve creative insights as they seem to be less predictably reproducible
throughout history. A meme like Einstein's relativity is, ideationally
speaking, more of a "masterpiece" or "rarity" than that of DNA.
A student summed it up best as he argued with his group: "Look, just
preserve as much of this paradigm as possible."
And doesn't it seem that paradigm formation relies on these "masterpieces"
of insight? Of course, Kuhn et.al have volumes to say about all that, but
in simple terms, it seem that if you select a few masterpieces, the natural
revelations will follow. Not bar none, but quite often.
On another note, I'm curious as to why you selected Complexity theories for
inclusion. I think notions of Complexity would "emerge" of their own
volition when science is ready to observe them, don't you think? The
various intimations of complexity theory that you mentioned seem to bear
that rationale out. No question, the fields are important and may lead to a
critical insight, but in this exercise, couldn't they be gambled on as a
result of sufficient complexity in the nature of modern science itself?
Hmm.
Brad