Facts decay at statistically predictable rates, just like radioactive isotopes

Arbesman's central and most original claim borrows directly from nuclear physics: just as a radioactive substance has a half-life, the time it takes for half of its atoms to decay, bodies of factual knowledge within specific fields have a measurable half-life too, a time period after which roughly half of what's currently accepted as true will be revised or overturned. He demonstrates this using citation analysis and studies tracking how long medical and scientific claims remain unchallenged before being updated or reversed, finding surprisingly consistent decay curves across different domains. This doesn't mean facts are randomly unreliable; rather, like radioactive decay, the process follows identifiable statistical patterns even though we cannot predict exactly which specific fact will be the next to fall. Recognizing this pattern allows for more calibrated confidence: knowledge in fast-decaying fields like some areas of medicine deserves more frequent reassessment than knowledge in slower-decaying fields like basic physics constants. Takeaway: treat confidently held facts as provisional on a schedule, not as permanently settled just because they were true when you learned them.