The Rejection of Continental Drift

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

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.