数学和计算机科学是精确的科学。如果发现和认识,这不是错误的。随着时间的推移,可能会有更好的新方法做,但旧的东西仍然是正确的。这就是为什么你可以得到一个从60年代教科书和学习。柯西的法律仍然正确,欧拉定理仍然是正确的。这不是地球科学的情况(我扩大从你的“物理”)。江南体育网页版几乎所有在地球科学领域发表的论文的主题“我们认为的东西但是现在我们发现它实际上是错误的”。江南体育网页版每年有成百上千的那些。而数学教科书教事实,地球科学教科书存在的意见作者在写作的时候,也通常江南体育网页版更广泛的地球科学界的普遍观点,但它没有。在大多数情况下,旧的教科书是不会* *坏,但会有丰富的精度和遗漏。 If you go back enough, you might finds that are completely wrong (plate tectonics was only accepted in the 1960s!). But it doesn't have to be this: take subduction zones. The understanding of what happens to slabs once they subduct was only somewhat understood (at least on an undergrad textbook level) in the past 15 years. Whether the slabs themselves melt or not isn't even known today (even though textbooks will mostly say they don't: again, this is the opinion of the author). The inner structure of the earth as understood from seismicity and tomography is being refined every year. In your textbook links you gave the example of planetary science and volcanism. In the case of planetary science, every time there is a new mission we learn so much. Just example of some discoveries of extraterrestrial volcanoes: Io in [1979][1], Triton in [1989][2], and Titan in [2005][3]. Also think of the latest understanding of minor planets, comets and asteroids obtained in the past 5 years. This is not something you will find in even moderately new textbooks. To sum it up, old earth science textbooks are not completely wrong. But they are wrong to some degree, and they most probably contain a lot of omissions (depends on the exact sub-field). Online sources are usually much better for that. Maybe start with related MOOCs? These can be good starting points. Even if you prefer reading and not watching videos, you can usually find a list of (somewhat) up to date sources there. [1]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/280733a0 [2]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.246.4936.1422 [3]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature03596