Saturation point

In schooldays, we read about famous contributors to Physics like Einstein, Planck, Newton, Raman, etc. Ancient mathematicians like Pythagoras, Aryabhatta, Ptolemy to "recent" ones like Euler, Ramanujam, Erdos, etc. were also well read about. The case can also be extended to Biology and Chemistry. Although work has been done in Physics, Chemistry, Medicine (as the Nobel prizes would indicate), why isn't the common man hearing anything about them?

For instance, the "latest" I can think about a major contributor(s) in the field of, say, Medicine would be Watson & Crick (of the DNA model), which was way back in 1962. I checked the Nobel prize web site and to my shame, I missed an Indian (Dr. Har Gobind Khorana) who won it in 1968. Why is that?. Is it my ignorance, or is the sylabi so badly outdated?. I know, that in this age and time, one can get infinite resources on the Net, yet, I think students would benefit if they are asked to study contemporary science side-by-side with their traditional school courses. For this reasoning, I am not considering post-graduates or post-docs in one particular field - in which case, one NEEDS to advance his/her knowledge. This applies to the extension of one's gamut of General Knoweldge.

So how much should we learn and what should we learn?

Lets take Physics as an example. Physics is a field where one good idea can turn the whole world upside down. Relativity overturned Newtonian concepts. Now quantum theory is threatening to disprove relativity. In Life sciences, Darwin's evolutionary theory was looked upon with disdain when he proposed it. But does this mean that one should not read about a "disproved fact"?. Do we need it for historical reasons?. In short, what is deserved to be known?

Is the world now made up of too many small things and none substantial?

I do not know the answer.

PS: Do we feel the same with Literature, Poetry and the Arts?