The Rejection of Continental Drift

科学如何发展是科学和技术研究的一个重要课题，这既是因为它的内在兴趣，也是因为它具有明显的政策相关性。研究科学发展的一个主要方面是不仅要理解为什么一个科学理论被接受，而且还要理解为什么科学家拒绝接受一个理论。Oreskes博士研究了美国科学家对大陆漂移理论的抵制，这将极大地丰富我们对阻碍科学理论被接受的因素的理解。20世纪初，美国地球科学家强烈反对大陆流动性的概念。然而，不到50年后，同样的想法被誉为一项重大的概念突破，今天，大陆的流动性被认为是一个科学“事实”。Oreskes博士正在研究为什么美国地质学家坚决拒绝现在被认为是正确的想法。为什么他们的反应比英国或欧洲同行负面得多？对1960年之前拒绝大陆漂移的标准解释是，没有任何机制来解释巨大的陆地块如何在地球表面滑动。Oreskes博士驳斥了这一解释。她发现，尽管有几种对大陆迁移性的解释--包括今天普遍接受的解释--但大陆漂移被拒绝了，相反，她认为大陆漂移之所以被拒绝，是因为该理论的含义被认为是对美国地球科学基本方法论原则和实践标准的挑战。奥雷斯克斯博士正试图将这场漂移辩论置于美国现有地质研究传统的背景下，并将对理论的态度与美国地质学中的科学实践模式联系起来。因此，这项工作将有助于理解科学理论与实践之间的关系、这些实践的文化渊源，并提出当实践标准发生变化时可能出现的一些哲学问题。

How science develops is a major subject of investigation for science and technology studies both because of its intrinsic interest and because of its obvious policy relevance. A major aspect of studying scientific development is understanding not only why a scientific theory is accepted but also why scientists resist accepting a theory. Dr. Oreskes study of American scientists' resistance to the theory of continental drift promises greatly to enrich our understanding of factors blocking acceptance of a scientific theory. In the early 20th century, American earth scientists vociferously opposed the notion of continental mobility. Yet less than 50 years later, the same idea was hearlded as a major conceptual breakthough, and today continental mobility is considered a scientific "fact." Dr. Oreskes is studying why American geologists adamently rejected an idea that is now considered true. Why did they react so much more negatively than their British or European counterparts? The standard explanation given for the rejection of continental drift before 1960 was that there was no mechanism to explain how enormous blocks of land could slide over the surface of the globe. Dr. Oreskes rejects this explanation. She has found that continental drift was rejected in spite of the availability of several explanations of continental mobility--including the explanation generally accepted today--and suggests instead that drift was rejected because the implications of the theory were perceived as a challenge to underlying methodological principles and standards of practice in American earth science. Dr. Oreskes is attempting to place this drift debate within the context of existing American geological research traditions, and to relate attitudes about theory to patterns of scientific practice in American geology. This work will thus contribute to an understanding of the relationshsip between scientific theory and practices, the cultural origins of those practices, and suggest some philosophical issues that may arise when standards of practice change.