The Rejection of Continental Drift: Theory and Method in American Earth Science

Features

• Cover Type: Paperback with 432 pages
• Published by: Oxford University Press, USA April 1, 1999
• Written in: English
• ISBN 10 Number: 0195117336
• ISBN 13 Number: 978-0195117332
• Book Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.1 x 1.1 inches
• Weighs: 1.7 pounds

Reader Reviews
Naomi Oreskes has written a fascinating explanation of why the American geology community rejected, for half a century, what is the most important unifying principle in geology and arguably of science in the 20th century: continental drift. This book is brilliant storytelling, the history of science at its best. Of course we all know the right answer. Continental drift seems so intuitively obvious now, the cornerstone of so many of our planet's processes, that it seems incomprehensible any intelligent person could have rejected Alfred Wegener's explanation, first published in 1912. The mystery deepens when we read that the concept was suggested earlier by an American geologist (Taylor) and that several highly respected American geologists did in fact accept it enthusiastically, as did the great majority of geologists in Europe, South Africa, and Australia. Oreskes lays out for the non-specialist the history of related geological concepts as well as the drift controversy per se. She thoroughly punctures the myth that continental drift was rejected simply because Wegener had not proposed a causal mechanism, even though her citations show that this was used as an excuse after the fact. She explores and convincingly presents the deeper reasons. Her conclusions are not complimentary to either the American psyche nor to the scientific method. (Lord Kelvin's arrogant parochialism, rejecting all field data and bullying geologists with his theoretical calculations based totally on a naive model of simple heat conduction, seems particularly shallow.) Remarkably, the author manages to present a sympathetic side to the human dilemmas of the story, while not at all mitigating the really profound implications of a story that goes far beyond geology - the weakness, even fragility, of the scientific method. This masterfully told story suggests a paraphrase of arch-conservative William F. Buckley's critique of capitalism and capitalists: the trouble with science is scientists. Comment | | (Report this)