Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-28T02:13:30.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Non-Kuhnian Nature of the Recent Revolution in the Earth Sciences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Henry Frankel
Henry Frankel*
Affiliation:
University of Missouri, Kansas City
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is without doubt that the earth sciences were rocked to the core by a revolution in the late sixties with the initial acceptance of Harry Hess’s hypothesis of seafloor spreading and subsequent development and acceptance of plate tectonics. The major aim of this essay is to show precisely why this revolution is not Kuhnian. However, my reasons for claiming that Kuhn’s model fails to apply are at variance with Ruse [27] but in much agreement with R. Laudan [18]. I shall highlight our differences as space permits.

There are two general accounts of the rise of continental drift and plate tectonics which satisfy Kuhn’s model of scientific growth and change. (1) The geosciences prior to the acceptance of seafloor spreading and plate tectonics were in a pre-paradigm state. Earth scientists solved no problems within geological domains, but only argued among themselves about which of the various schools of thought provided the best framework for attacking geological problems.

Type
Part VI. Philosophical Consequences of the Recent Revolution in Geology
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1978 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1978 , 1978 , pp. 196 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

This paper is based on research supported by NEH and the National Science Foundation’s History and Philosophy of Science program. I should also like to thank Nan Biersmith for her aid. For those unfamiliar with the rise and development of drift I recommend Hallam [10], Marvin [21], Sullivan [28] and Wertenbaker [36].

References

[1] Argand, Emile. Tectonics of Asia. (trans.) Carozzi, Albert V. New York: Hafner Press, 1977.Google Scholar
[2] Carey, S.W. (ed.). Continental Drift — A Symposium. Hobart: University of Tasmania, 1958.Google Scholar
[3] Carey, S.W. The Expanding Earth. New York: Elsevier, 1976.Google Scholar
[4] Dietz, R. “Continent and Ocean Basin Evolution by Spreading of the Sea Floor.” Nature 190 (1961): 6567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5] Dietz, R. “Reply.” Journal of Geophysical Research 73 (1968): 947–949.Google Scholar
[6] Du Toit, Alex. Our Wandering Continents. London: Oliver and Boyd, 1937.Google Scholar
[7] Frankel, Henry. “Arthur Holmes and Continental Drift.” The British Journal for the History of Science 11 (1978): 130–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8] Frankel, Henry. “The Reception and Acceptance of Continental Drift Theory as a Rational Episode in the History of Science.” In The Reception of Unconventional Science (AAAS Selected Symposia Series.) Edited by Mauskopf, Seymour H.. Boulder: Westview Press, 1979. Pages 51–89.Google Scholar
[9] Frankel, Henry. “The Career of Continental Drift Theory: An Application of Imre Lakatos’ Analysis of Scientific Growth to the Rise of Drift Theory.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 10 (1979): 21–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10] Hallam, Arthur. A Revolution in the Earth Sciences. Cambridge: University Press, 1973.Google Scholar
[11] Heirtzler, J. and le Pichon, X. “Crustal Structure of the Mid-Ocean Ridges.” Journal of Geophysical Research 70 (1965): 4013–4033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12] Hess, H.H. “Evolution, Ocean Basins.” Preprint (1960).Google Scholar
[l3] Hess, H.H. “History of Ocean Basins.” In Petrologic Studies: A Volume to Honor A.F. Buddington. Edited by Engel, A., James, H. and Leonard, B.. Boulder: Geological Society of America, 1962. Pages 599–620.Google Scholar
[14] Holmes, Arthur. “Radioactivity and Continental Drift.” Geological Magazine 65 (1928): 263–278.Google Scholar
[15] Holmes, Arthur. “Radioactivity and Earth Movements.” Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow 27 (1931): 567–606.Google Scholar
[16] Joly, John. “The Movements of the Earth’s Surface Crust.” Philosophical Magazine 45 (1923): 1167–1188.Google Scholar
[17] Laudan, Larry. Progress and Its Problems. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977.Google Scholar
[18] Laudan, Rachel. “The Recent Revolution in Geology and Kuhn’s Theory of Scientific Change.” In PSA 1978, Volume Two. Edited by Asquith, P.D. and Hacking, I. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, 1981. Pages 227–239.Google Scholar
[19] Lear, John. “Canada’s Unappreciated Role as Scientific Innovator.” Saturday Review (1967): 45–50.Google Scholar
[20] Longwell, Chester. “My Estimate of the Continental Drift Concept.” In [2]. Pages 1–12.Google Scholar
[21] Marvin, Ursula. Continental Drift. The Evolution of a Concept. Washington: Smithsonian Press, 1973.Google Scholar
[22] McKenzie, D.P. and Parker, R.L. “The North Pacific: An Example of Tectonics on a Sphere.” Nature 216 (1967): 1276–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23] Menard, H.W. “Very like a Spear.” In Two Hundred Years of Geology in America (Proceedings of the New Hampshire Bicentennial Conference on the History of Geology.) Edited by Schneer, Cecil J. Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New England, 1979. Pages 19–30.Google Scholar
[24] Morley, L.W. and Larochelle, A. “Paleomagnetism as a Means of Dating Geological Events.” In Geochronology in Canada. (The Royal Society of Canada Special Publications, No. 8.) Edited by F. Fitz Osborne. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964. Pages 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[25] Morgan, Jason. “Rises, Trenches, Great Faults, and Crustal Blocks.” Journal of Geophysical Research 73 (1968): 1959–1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[26] Pitman, W. and Heirtzler, J. “Magnetic Anomalies Over the Pacific-Antarctic Ridge.” Science 154 (1966): 1164–1171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[27] Ruse, Michael. “What Kind of Revolution Occurred in Geology?” In PSA 1978, Volume Two. Edited by Asquith, P.D. and Hacking, I. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, 1981. Pages 240–273.Google Scholar
[28] Sullivan, Walter. Continents in Motion. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974.Google Scholar
[29] Sykes, L.R. “Mechanism of Earthquakes and Nature of Faulting on the Mid-Oceanic Ridge.” Journal of Geophysical Research 72(1967): 2131–2153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[30] Takeychi, H., Uyeda, S. and Kanamori, H. Debate About the Earth. San Francisco: Freeman, 1967.Google Scholar
[31] Gracht, van der, van Waterschoot, W. (ed.). Theory of Continental Drift: A Symposium on the Origin and Movement of Land Masses both Intercontinental and Intra-Continental, as Proposed by Alfred Wegener. Tulsa: AAPG, 1928.Google Scholar
[32] Vine, F. and Matthews, D. “Magnetic Anomalies Over Oceanic Ridges.” Nature 199 (1963): 947–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[33] Vine, F. “Spreading of the Ocean Floor: New Evidence.” Science 154 (1966): 1405–1415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[34] Wegener, Alfred. Die Entstehung der Kontinente und Ozeane. Braunschweig: F. Vieweg und Sohn, 1915.Google Scholar
[35] Wegener, Alfred. The Origin of Continents and Oceans. New York: Dover, 1966. Translated from the 4th revised Edition of Die Entstehung der Kontinente und Ozeane. Braunschweig: F. Vieweg und Sohn, 1929.Google Scholar
[36] Wertenbaker, W. The Floor of the Sea. Boston: Little and Brown, 1974.Google Scholar
[37] Willis, Bailey. “Isthmian Links.” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 43 (1932): 917–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[38] Willis, Bailey. “Continental Drift, ein Märchen.” American Journal of Science 242 (1944): 509–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[39] Wilson, J.T. “A New Class of Faults and Their Bearing on Continental Drift.” Nature 207 (1965): 343–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar