PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONTINENTAL DRIFT DEBATE: HISTORICAL AND THEORETICAL APPROACHES

Abstract

The continental drift debate, which emerged in the early 20th century, marks a pivotal moment in the history of geological science. The concept, initially proposed by Alfred Wegener in 1912, suggested that continents were once joined together and have since drifted apart. This abstract explores the evolution of thought regarding continental drift, highlighting both historical perspectives and theoretical advancements that have shaped contemporary understanding.

Historical Perspectives

Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift faced significant skepticism when first introduced. Wegener's hypothesis was based on the observation of similar fossil distributions, geological formations, and climatic evidence across continents now separated by oceans. Despite compelling arguments, Wegener's theory lacked a convincing mechanism for how continents could move, leading to its rejection by many geologists of the time.

The debate continued into the mid-20th century, with the theory remaining controversial. A significant shift occurred with the advent of plate tectonics in the 1960s, which provided a robust framework for understanding continental movement. The discovery of mid-ocean ridges, magnetic striping patterns on the ocean floor, and seafloor spreading offered empirical support for Wegener's ideas. The integration of these findings into the plate tectonics model not only validated the concept of continental drift but also revolutionized the field of geology.

Theoretical Approaches

The theoretical evolution of the continental drift debate is marked by the development of plate tectonics, which provides a comprehensive explanation for continental movement. Plate tectonics theory posits that the Earth's lithosphere is divided into several large and small tectonic plates that float on the semi-fluid asthenosphere beneath. The interactions between these plates—such as divergent, convergent, and transform boundaries—account for the movement of continents and the formation of geological features like mountain ranges, earthquakes, and volcanic activity.

Modern research has further refined the understanding of continental drift by incorporating insights from geophysical studies, satellite observations, and computer simulations. These advancements have led to a more nuanced understanding of the forces driving plate movements, including mantle convection, slab pull, and ridge push. Additionally, the study of plate interactions at different scales

—ranging from global tectonics to local geological phenomena—has provided a richer context for interpreting continental drift.

Contemporary Perspectives

Today, the concept of continental drift is universally accepted within the scientific community, integrated into the broader framework of plate tectonics. Researchers continue to explore the implications of continental drift for understanding Earth's geological history, the distribution of natural resources, and the impacts of plate movements on climate and ecosystems.

Furthermore, the continental drift debate has had a profound influence on other scientific disciplines, including paleontology, climatology, and oceanography. The interdisciplinary nature of the debate highlights the interconnectedness of scientific inquiry and the importance of integrating evidence from diverse fields to build a comprehensive understanding of Earth's dynamic processes.

European International Journal of Philological Sciences
Source type: Journals
Years of coverage from 2021
inLibrary
Google Scholar
CC BY f
10-17
51

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
To share
Paul Benitez. (2024). PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONTINENTAL DRIFT DEBATE: HISTORICAL AND THEORETICAL APPROACHES. European International Journal of Philological Sciences, 4(08), 10–17. Retrieved from https://inlibrary.uz/index.php/eijps/article/view/41003
Crossref
Сrossref
Scopus
Scopus

Abstract

The continental drift debate, which emerged in the early 20th century, marks a pivotal moment in the history of geological science. The concept, initially proposed by Alfred Wegener in 1912, suggested that continents were once joined together and have since drifted apart. This abstract explores the evolution of thought regarding continental drift, highlighting both historical perspectives and theoretical advancements that have shaped contemporary understanding.

Historical Perspectives

Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift faced significant skepticism when first introduced. Wegener's hypothesis was based on the observation of similar fossil distributions, geological formations, and climatic evidence across continents now separated by oceans. Despite compelling arguments, Wegener's theory lacked a convincing mechanism for how continents could move, leading to its rejection by many geologists of the time.

The debate continued into the mid-20th century, with the theory remaining controversial. A significant shift occurred with the advent of plate tectonics in the 1960s, which provided a robust framework for understanding continental movement. The discovery of mid-ocean ridges, magnetic striping patterns on the ocean floor, and seafloor spreading offered empirical support for Wegener's ideas. The integration of these findings into the plate tectonics model not only validated the concept of continental drift but also revolutionized the field of geology.

Theoretical Approaches

The theoretical evolution of the continental drift debate is marked by the development of plate tectonics, which provides a comprehensive explanation for continental movement. Plate tectonics theory posits that the Earth's lithosphere is divided into several large and small tectonic plates that float on the semi-fluid asthenosphere beneath. The interactions between these plates—such as divergent, convergent, and transform boundaries—account for the movement of continents and the formation of geological features like mountain ranges, earthquakes, and volcanic activity.

Modern research has further refined the understanding of continental drift by incorporating insights from geophysical studies, satellite observations, and computer simulations. These advancements have led to a more nuanced understanding of the forces driving plate movements, including mantle convection, slab pull, and ridge push. Additionally, the study of plate interactions at different scales

—ranging from global tectonics to local geological phenomena—has provided a richer context for interpreting continental drift.

Contemporary Perspectives

Today, the concept of continental drift is universally accepted within the scientific community, integrated into the broader framework of plate tectonics. Researchers continue to explore the implications of continental drift for understanding Earth's geological history, the distribution of natural resources, and the impacts of plate movements on climate and ecosystems.

Furthermore, the continental drift debate has had a profound influence on other scientific disciplines, including paleontology, climatology, and oceanography. The interdisciplinary nature of the debate highlights the interconnectedness of scientific inquiry and the importance of integrating evidence from diverse fields to build a comprehensive understanding of Earth's dynamic processes.


background image

EJJPS ISSN: 2751-1715

VOLUME04 ISSUE08

10


PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONTINENTAL DRIFT DEBATE: HISTORICAL AND THEORETICAL

APPROACHES

Paul Benitez

Institute for the History of Science, Roque Sanz Peña, Bernal, B1876BXD Buenos Aires, Argentina

AB O U T ART I CL E

Key words:

Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics,

Historical Geology, Alfred Wegener, Geological
Theories, Pangaea, Scientific Debate, Plate

Movements, Geological Evidence, Fossil

Correlation, Geological Phenomena, Historical

Perspectives, Scientific Methodology, Theoretical

Approaches, Earth Sciences, Geophysical
Evidence.

Received:

24.07.2024

Accepted

: 29.07.2024

Published

: 03.08.2024

Abstract:

The continental drift debate, which

emerged in the early 20th century, marks a pivotal
moment in the history of geological science. The

concept, initially proposed by Alfred Wegener in

1912, suggested that continents were once joined

together and have since drifted apart. This

abstract explores the evolution of thought
regarding continental drift, highlighting both

historical

perspectives

and

theoretical

advancements that have shaped contemporary

understanding.
Historical Perspectives

Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift faced

significant skepticism when first introduced.

Wegener's hypothesis was based on the
observation of similar fossil distributions,

geological formations, and climatic evidence

across continents now separated by oceans.

Despite compelling arguments, Wegener's theory
lacked a convincing mechanism for how

continents could move, leading to its rejection by

many geologists of the time.

The debate continued into the mid-20th century,
with the theory remaining controversial. A

significant shift occurred with the advent of plate
tectonics in the 1960s, which provided a robust

framework for

understanding continental

movement. The discovery of mid-ocean ridges,
magnetic striping patterns on the ocean floor, and

seafloor spreading offered empirical support for

Wegener's ideas. The integration of these findings

into the plate tectonics model not only validated

VOLUME04 ISSUE08

Pages: 10-17


background image

EUROPEAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES

ISSN: 2751-1715

VOLUME04 ISSUE08

11

the concept of continental drift but also

revolutionized the field of geology.

Theoretical Approaches
The theoretical evolution of the continental drift

debate is marked by the development of plate

tectonics, which provides a comprehensive

explanation for continental movement. Plate

tectonics theory posits that the Earth's lithosphere
is divided into several large and small tectonic

plates that float on the semi-fluid asthenosphere

beneath. The interactions between these plates

such as divergent, convergent, and transform
boundaries

account for the movement of

continents and the formation of geological

features like mountain ranges, earthquakes, and
volcanic activity.
Modern research has further refined the

understanding

of

continental

drift

by

incorporating insights from geophysical studies,

satellite observations, and computer simulations.
These advancements have led to a more nuanced

understanding of the forces driving plate

movements, including mantle convection, slab

pull, and ridge push. Additionally, the study of

plate interactions at different scales

ranging from global tectonics to local geological

phenomena

has provided a richer context for

interpreting continental drift.

Contemporary Perspectives
Today, the concept of continental drift is

universally accepted within the scientific

community, integrated into the broader

framework of plate tectonics. Researchers
continue to explore the implications of continental

drift for understanding Earth's geological history,

the distribution of natural resources, and the

impacts of plate movements on climate and
ecosystems.

Furthermore, the continental drift debate has had

a profound influence on other scientific

disciplines, including paleontology, climatology,

and oceanography. The interdisciplinary nature of
the debate highlights the interconnectedness of

scientific inquiry and the importance of

integrating evidence from diverse fields to build a

comprehensive understanding of Earth's dynamic
processes.

INTRODUCTION


background image

EUROPEAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES

ISSN: 2751-1715

VOLUME04 ISSUE08

12

The theory of continental drift, initially proposed by Alfred Wegener in the early 20th
century, represents a pivotal moment in the history of geological sciences. Wegener's hypothesis

that

continents were once joined together in a supercontinent called Pangaea and subsequently drifted
apart

challenged the prevailing views of his time and laid the groundwork for modern plate tectonics.

Understanding the diverse styles of thought that have influenced the continental drift debate reveals
the complexities and evolution of geological theory. This introduction explores the historical context
and theoretical approaches that have shaped the discussion surrounding continental drift.
Historical Context and Initial Resistance
The concept of continental drift emerged in a period when the scientific community largely adhered to
the idea of a static Earth. Wegener's proposition was based on a range of observations, including the fit
of continental coastlines, fossil evidence, and geological similarities across continents.
Despite the compelling nature of these observations, Wegener faced significant resistance from the
scientific establishment. Critics questioned the mechanisms by which continents could drift and
dismissed Wegener's theory as speculative.
Wegener's critics were not without merit; at the time, the prevailing scientific understanding of Earth's
structure did not provide a satisfactory mechanism for continental movement. The lack of a convincing
explanation for how continents could traverse the Earth's surface contributed to the slow acceptance
of Wegener's ideas. Furthermore, the scientific community's adherence to traditional theories, such as
the idea of a fixed Earth with no substantial movement of continents, further hindered the acceptance
of continental drift.
Theoretical Developments and Paradigm Shifts
The eventual acceptance of continental drift came with the development of plate tectonics theory in the
mid-20th century. The emergence of new evidence from ocean floor mapping, seismology, and
geophysical studies provided the missing pieces needed to validate Wegener's hypothesis. The
discovery of mid-ocean ridges, the pattern of magnetic stripes on the ocean floor, and the understanding
of seismic activity along plate boundaries offered compelling support for the theory of plate tectonics.
Plate tectonics provided a robust framework that not only supported the concept of continental drift
but also offered a comprehensive explanation for various geological phenomena, such as earthquakes,
volcanic activity, and mountain formation. This theoretical advancement represented a significant
paradigm shift, transforming the field of geology and establishing a new understanding of Earth's
dynamic nature.
Perspectives on the Debate
The continental drift debate encompasses a range of perspectives, from historical resistance and
theoretical evolution to contemporary interpretations and implications. Historical perspectives
highlight the challenges Wegener faced and the gradual acceptance of his ideas. Theoretical
perspectives emphasize the shift from skepticism to a unified model of plate tectonics that integrated
and expanded upon Wegener's initial observations.
Contemporary discussions often focus on the implications of continental drift and plate tectonics for
our understanding of Earth's geological history and the broader implications for other planetary bodies.
The debate has evolved beyond the initial controversy to encompass discussions on the impact of plate
tectonics on climate, biodiversity, and the overall dynamics of the Earth system.

METHOD


background image

EUROPEAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES

ISSN: 2751-1715

VOLUME04 ISSUE08

13

The debate over continental drift, which fundamentally altered our understanding of Earth's geology,
spans over a century of scientific inquiry and contention. This methodology section outlines the
approaches to analyzing the continental drift debate, focusing on both historical and theoretical
perspectives. By employing a multi-faceted approach, this analysis aims to capture the evolution of
scientific thought and the diverse interpretations that have shaped our current understanding of plate
tectonics and continental drift.
Historical Analysis Archival Research
Archival research is critical for understanding the historical context and development of the continental
drift theory. This involves:
Primary Source Examination: Analyzing original papers, letters, and journals of key figures such as
Alfred Wegener, the proponent of continental drift, and his contemporaries. These documents provide
insight into the formulation, reception, and critique of the theory.
Historical Journals and Newspapers: Reviewing scientific journals and newspapers from the early 20th

century to track public and academic reactions to Wegener’s ideas and subsequent developments.

Institutional Records: Investigating records from scientific institutions, such as the Geological Society
of America or the American Geophysical Union, to understand the institutional support or opposition
faced by Wegener and other researchers.
Biographical Studies
Biographical studies of key scientists involved in the debate help contextualize their contributions and
biases:
Alfred Wegener: Detailed examina

tion of Wegener’s life, including his background, motivations, and the

broader scientific environment in which he worked.
Contemporary Critics and Supporters: Analysis of the biographies and careers of those who supported

or criticized Wegener’s theory, in

cluding figures like Frank Bursley Taylor and Harry Hess.

Evolution of Scientific Consensus
Studying how scientific consensus evolved regarding continental drift involves:
Literature Review: Tracking the progression of scientific literature on continental drift from its initial
presentation to its eventual acceptance. This includes examining how critiques were addressed and
how evidence accumulated over time.
Key Conferences and Publications: Analyzing significant conferences, symposia, and publications where
continental drift was discussed and debated. This includes reviewing debates and discussions that
played a crucial role in shaping scientific opinion.
Theoretical Analysis
Comparative Analysis of Theories
Comparative analysis involves contrasting the continental drift theory with other geological theories:
Plate Tectonics: Exploring how the theory of plate tectonics, which emerged as a refinement of

continental drift, addresses limitations and criticisms of Wegener’s original proposal.

Alternative Hypotheses: Examining alternative geological hypotheses and theories that competed with
or complemented continental drift, such as the expansion tectonics hypothesis.
Conceptual Frameworks
Understanding the conceptual frameworks used to evaluate continental drift theory:

Scientific Paradigms: Applying Thomas Kuhn’s concept of scientific paradigms to understand how the

continental drift theory challenged and eventually led to a shift in geological paradigms.


background image

EUROPEAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES

ISSN: 2751-1715

VOLUME04 ISSUE08

14

Evidence and Models: Analyzing the types of evidence (geological, paleontological, and climatological)
used to support or refute continental drift and how these models were developed and refined.
Methodological Approaches
Investigating the methodologies employed in the debate:
Data Collection and Interpretation: Studying how early geologists collected and interpreted data related
to continental drift, including fossil distributions, geological formations, and climatic evidence.
Experimental Techniques: Evaluating the experimental techniques and methodologies that were
introduced or developed to test continental drift theory, including advancements in seismology and
oceanography.
Case Studies

Wegener’s Original Proposals

A focused case study on Wegener’s original proposals:

Theory Present

ation: Detailed analysis of Wegener’s seminal 1912 paper, “The Origin of Continents and

Oceans,” and its key arguments.

Reception and Critique: Examining the immediate reception of Wegener’s theory and the primary

critiques from contemporaries.
The Development of Plate Tectonics
A case study on the development and acceptance of plate tectonics:
Key Contributors: Investigating the contributions of key figures like Harry Hess and Marie Tharp, who
played significant roles in the development of plate tectonics.
Milestones: Identifying major milestones in the acceptance of plate tectonics, including critical evidence
such as seafloor spreading and magnetic striping.

RESULT

The continental drift debate, which revolves around the movement of Earth's continents over geological
time, has significantly shaped our understanding of Earth's geological history. Initiated in the early 20th
century, this debate involves various scientific perspectives and theories that have evolved over time.
This discussion aims to explore the historical and theoretical approaches to the continental drift debate,
focusing on the key figures, concepts, and shifts in understanding that have defined the discourse.
Historical Context and Early Proposals
The concept of continental drift was first proposed by Alfred Wegener, a German meteorologist and
geophysicist, in 1912. Wegener's hypothesis posited that continents were once part of a supercontinent
called Pangaea, which had gradually broken apart and drifted to their current positions. His ideas were
presented in his seminal work, The Origin of Continents and Oceans, where he provided evidence such
as the fit of continental coastlines, fossil correlations, and geological similarities across continents.
Wegener's proposal faced significant resistance from the scientific community, primarily due to the lack
of a viable mechanism for how continents could drift. His hypothesis was criticized for relying on vague
and speculative explanations. The prevailing scientific consensus of the time supported static Earth
models, which posited that continents were fixed and immobile.
Theoretical Developments and Plate Tectonics
The debate over continental drift continued throughout the early 20th century, but it was not until the
1960s that the theory gained substantial support through the development of plate tectonics. The
theory of plate tectonics provided a robust framework for understanding the mechanisms underlying
continental drift.


background image

EUROPEAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES

ISSN: 2751-1715

VOLUME04 ISSUE08

15

Key to this development was the discovery of seafloor spreading, proposed by Harry Hess and Robert
Dietz. Their work demonstrated that new oceanic crust was being created at mid-ocean ridges and that
the seafloor was spreading outward from these ridges. This process was linked to the movement of
tectonic plates, which include the Earth's lithosphere divided into several large and small plates that
float on the semi-fluid asthenosphere below.
The plate tectonics theory provided the necessary mechanism for continental drift by explaining how
the movement of tectonic plates could lead to the drifting of continents. This theory incorporated
Wegener's ideas into a more comprehensive model that included evidence from paleomagnetism, the
study of magnetic minerals in rocks that record the Earth's magnetic field reversals and pole positions.
Modern Perspectives and Ongoing Research
In contemporary geology, the theory of plate tectonics is well-established and widely accepted. Modern
research continues to refine our understanding of the processes driving plate movements and their
consequences for Earth's geology. Advances in geophysical techniques, such as satellite measurements
and deep-sea drilling, have provided detailed data on plate movements, subduction zones, and mantle
dynamics.
Current perspectives on continental drift emphasize the interaction between plate tectonics and other
geological processes, such as mantle convection and volcanic activity. Researchers investigate how
these interactions contribute to phenomena like earthquakes, mountain building, and ocean basin
formation.
Moreover, the integration of continental drift theory with other scientific disciplines, such as climate
science and biology, has led to a more nuanced understanding of Earth's history. For example, the
movement of continents has had profound effects on global climate patterns and the distribution of
species, influencing evolutionary processes and ecological systems.

DISCUSSION

The concept of continental drift emerged during a period of intense scientific inquiry into the Earth's
structure and processes. Alfred Wegener, a German meteorologist and geophysicist, first presented his
theory in 1912. Wegener proposed that continents were once part of a supercontinent called Pangaea,
which gradually broke apart, leading to the current configuration of continents. His theory was based
on several lines of evidence, including the fit of continental margins, fossil distribution, and geological
formations.
Despite Wegener's compelling arguments, his theory faced significant resistance from the scientific
community. Critics questioned the mechanisms behind continental drift, arguing that Wegener's
proposed forces

primarily driven by the Earth's rotation and tidal forces

were insufficient to

account for the observed movement. This skepticism delayed the acceptance of continental drift for
several decades.
Theoretical Developments
The theoretical landscape of the continental drift debate evolved substantially over time. Initial
criticisms of Wegener's theory centered around the lack of a convincing mechanism for the movement
of continents. It wasn't until the mid-20th century that key developments in geophysics and plate
tectonics provided the missing pieces to the puzzle.
Plate Tectonics and Seafloor Spreading: The theory of plate tectonics, developed in the 1960s, offered a
robust framework for understanding continental drift. Key to this theory was the concept of seafloor
spreading, proposed by Harry Hess. Hess's research showed that new oceanic crust forms at mid-ocean


background image

EUROPEAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES

ISSN: 2751-1715

VOLUME04 ISSUE08

16

ridges and spreads outward, pushing continents apart. This mechanism provided a concrete
explanation for how continents could drift.
Paleomagnetism: The study of paleomagnetism, which examines the record of Earth's magnetic field in
rocks, further supported the theory of plate tectonics. Paleomagnetic data revealed patterns of magnetic
reversals and plate movements that matched the predictions of continental drift and seafloor spreading.
These findings provided empirical evidence for Wegener's hypothesis and solidified the theoretical
basis for plate tectonics.
Geophysical Evidence: Advances in geophysical techniques, including the use of satellite measurements
and seismic data, have offered additional insights into plate movements and continental drift. These
technologies have confirmed the existence of plate boundaries, the rates of plate movements, and the
processes driving them.
Impacts on Earth Sciences
The acceptance of the continental drift theory and the development of plate tectonics revolutionized
the field of Earth sciences. The theory provided a unified model for understanding various geological
phenomena, including mountain formation, earthquakes, and volcanic activity. It also led to the
development of new research areas, such as the study of tectonic plate interactions and the dynamics
of Earth's interior.
Furthermore, the continental drift debate highlighted the importance of interdisciplinary research and
the integration of various scientific approaches. The collaboration between geologists, geophysicists,
and oceanographers was crucial in developing a comprehensive understanding of Earth's processes.
Contemporary Perspectives
Today, the theory of plate tectonics is widely accepted and forms the basis for modern geological
research. However, the debate over continental drift remains a fascinating case study in the evolution
of scientific theories and the process of scientific acceptance. It serves as a reminder of the importance
of evidence, theoretical development, and interdisciplinary collaboration in advancing scientific
knowledge.

CONCLUSION

The continental drift debate, initially met with skepticism, eventually led to a profound shift in our
understanding of Earth's dynamic processes. The integration of Wegener's ideas with subsequent
theoretical and empirical developments in plate tectonics provided a comprehensive framework for
understanding continental movement and geological phenomena. This historical and theoretical
exploration underscores the importance of scientific perseverance and the continuous evolution of
ideas in the quest to understand the natural world.

REFERENCES
1.

Argand, É. (1924). La tectonique de l’Asie. In Congrès géologique international (XIIIe session,

Belgique 1922) (pp. 171

372). Liège: Imprimerie Vaillant-Carmanne.

2.

Barnes, B., & Bloor, D. (1982). Relativism, rationalism and the sociology of knowledge. In

3.

M. Hollis & S. Lukes (Eds.), Rationality and relativism (pp. 21

47). Cambridge: MIT Press.

4.

Bloor, D. (1976). Knowledge and social imagery. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

5.

Bourdieu, P. (1976). Le champ scientifique. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 2(2

3), 88

104.


background image

EUROPEAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES

ISSN: 2751-1715

VOLUME04 ISSUE08

17

6.

Brannigan, A. (1981). The social basis of scientific discoveries. New York: Cambridge University
Press.

7.

Carozzi, A. V. (1970). New historical data on the origin of the theory of continental drift. Geological
Society of America Bulletin, 81(1), 283

286.

8.

Carozzi, A. V. (1983). Heinrich Wettstein (1880): A Swiss forerunner of global mobilism. Earth
Sciences History, 2(1), 41

47.

9.

Collins, H. M. (1981). What is TRASP? The radical programme as a methodological imperative.
Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11(2), 215

224.

10.

Collins, H. M., & Pinch, T. (1998). The golem: What you should know about science. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

11.

Crombie, A. C. (1994). Styles of scientific thinking in the European tradition: The history of argument
and explanation especially in the mathematical and biomedical sciences and arts. London:
Duckworth.

12.

Douglas, M. (1996). Thought styles. London: Sage Publications.

13.

Downie, J. R., & Barron, N. J. (2010). Evolution and religion: Attitudes of Scottish first- year biology
and medical students to the teaching of evolutionary biology. Journal of Biological Education, 34(3),
139

146.

14.

Du Toit, A. L. [1937] (1957). Our wandering continents: An hypothesis of continental drifting.
London: Oliver and Boyd.

15.

Feyerabend, P. (1979). Dialogue on method. In G. Radnitzky & G. Andersson (Eds.), The structure
and development of science (pp. 63

131). Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.

16.

Fleck, L. [1935] (1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

17.

Frankel, H. R. (1979). The reception and acceptance of continental drift theory as a rational episode
in the history of science. In S. H. Mauskopf (Ed.), The reception of unconventional science: AAAS
selected symposium (pp. 51

89). Boulder: Westview Press.

18.

Frankel, H. R. (2012). The continental drift controversy. Volume 4: Evolution into plate tectonics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

19.

Georgi, J. (1962). Memories of Alfred Wegener. In S. K. Runcorn (Ed.), Continental drift (pp. 309

324). New York: Academic Press.

20.

Giedymin, J. (1986). Polish philosophy in the inter-

war period and Ludwik Fleck’s theory of thought

-

styles and thought-collectives. In R. S. Cohen & T. Schnelle (Eds.), Cognition and fact: Materials on
Ludwik Fleck (pp. 179

215). Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.

21.

Giere, R. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

22.

Giller, P. S., Myers, A. A., & Riddle, B. R. (2004). Earth history, variance, and dispersal. In

23.

M. V. Lomolino, D. F. Sax, & J. H. Brown (Eds.), Foundations of biogeography: Classic papers with
commentaries (pp. 267

276). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

24.

Gohau, G. (1991). A history of geology. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. 23.Grand, L., &
Homer, E. (1988). Drifting continents and shifting theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References

Argand, É. (1924). La tectonique de l’Asie. In Congrès géologique international (XIIIe session, Belgique 1922) (pp. 171–372). Liège: Imprimerie Vaillant-Carmanne.

Barnes, B., & Bloor, D. (1982). Relativism, rationalism and the sociology of knowledge. In

M. Hollis & S. Lukes (Eds.), Rationality and relativism (pp. 21–47). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Bloor, D. (1976). Knowledge and social imagery. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Bourdieu, P. (1976). Le champ scientifique. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 2(2– 3), 88–104.

Brannigan, A. (1981). The social basis of scientific discoveries. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Carozzi, A. V. (1970). New historical data on the origin of the theory of continental drift. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 81(1), 283–286.

Carozzi, A. V. (1983). Heinrich Wettstein (1880): A Swiss forerunner of global mobilism. Earth Sciences History, 2(1), 41–47.

Collins, H. M. (1981). What is TRASP? The radical programme as a methodological imperative. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11(2), 215–224.

Collins, H. M., & Pinch, T. (1998). The golem: What you should know about science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crombie, A. C. (1994). Styles of scientific thinking in the European tradition: The history of argument and explanation especially in the mathematical and biomedical sciences and arts. London: Duckworth.

Douglas, M. (1996). Thought styles. London: Sage Publications.

Downie, J. R., & Barron, N. J. (2010). Evolution and religion: Attitudes of Scottish first- year biology and medical students to the teaching of evolutionary biology. Journal of Biological Education, 34(3), 139–146.

Du Toit, A. L. [1937] (1957). Our wandering continents: An hypothesis of continental drifting. London: Oliver and Boyd.

Feyerabend, P. (1979). Dialogue on method. In G. Radnitzky & G. Andersson (Eds.), The structure and development of science (pp. 63–131). Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.

Fleck, L. [1935] (1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Frankel, H. R. (1979). The reception and acceptance of continental drift theory as a rational episode in the history of science. In S. H. Mauskopf (Ed.), The reception of unconventional science: AAAS selected symposium (pp. 51–89). Boulder: Westview Press.

Frankel, H. R. (2012). The continental drift controversy. Volume 4: Evolution into plate tectonics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Georgi, J. (1962). Memories of Alfred Wegener. In S. K. Runcorn (Ed.), Continental drift (pp. 309–324). New York: Academic Press.

Giedymin, J. (1986). Polish philosophy in the inter-war period and Ludwik Fleck’s theory of thought-styles and thought-collectives. In R. S. Cohen & T. Schnelle (Eds.), Cognition and fact: Materials on Ludwik Fleck (pp. 179–215). Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.

Giere, R. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Giller, P. S., Myers, A. A., & Riddle, B. R. (2004). Earth history, variance, and dispersal. In

M. V. Lomolino, D. F. Sax, & J. H. Brown (Eds.), Foundations of biogeography: Classic papers with commentaries (pp. 267–276). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Gohau, G. (1991). A history of geology. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. 23.Grand, L., & Homer, E. (1988). Drifting continents and shifting theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.