The Rejection of Continental Drift

科学是如何发展的，这是科学研究的一个主要课题。 科学技术研究既因为其内在的 这是因为它具有明显的政策相关性。 一个主要 研究科学发展观，不仅要认识 为什么一个科学理论被接受，但也为什么科学家抵制 接受一个理论。 奥雷斯克博士研究了美国科学家 对大陆漂移理论的抵制， 丰富我们对阻碍接受一个 科学理论。 世纪初，美国地球科学家大声疾呼 反对大陆流动性的概念。 然而不到50年 后来，同样的想法被认为是一个重要的概念， 突破，今天大陆移动被认为是一个 科学”的事实。“Oreskes博士正在研究为什么美国地质学家 坚决反对一个现在被认为是正确的观点。 为什么 他们的反应比英国人或欧洲人消极得多， 同行？ 拒绝大陆航空公司的标准解释是 1960年之前的漂移是没有机制来解释如何 巨大的陆地块会滑过地球仪的表面。 奥雷斯克斯博士拒绝这种解释。 她发现 大陆漂移被拒绝，尽管可用的 对大陆流动性的几种解释--包括 今天普遍接受的解释-并建议， 漂移被拒绝，因为该理论的含义是 被视为对基本方法原则的挑战 和美国地球科学的实践标准。 奥雷斯克斯博士 试图将这场关于漂移的辩论置于 现有的美国地质研究传统，并与 对科学实践模式的理论态度 美国地质学 这项工作将有助于 理解科学理论与 这些做法的文化渊源，并建议 一些哲学问题可能会出现时， 变化

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.