Scientific Values And Continental Drift

318 Words2 Pages
Philosophy 351 Micro Essay #3- Scientific values and continental drift I will argue that scientists should have accepted Wegener’s theory of continental drift at the time it was proposed. Firstly, Kuhn was a “non-realist” so he believed science was more like an evolution. His belief that one paradigm cannot be closer to the truth over the other was a logical way of settling disputes, as well as having the allowance of fundamental change (letting a new paradigm replace an old one; p. 35). To support Kuhn’s description of scientific values, Wegener supplied evidence of continuous chain patterns, connection of continental shelves, and paleontology (fossils of species found in sedimentary rock p. 36) all supporting his theory of continental drift. In comparison to Kuhn’s theory of fundamental change, Wegener theory seemed to reveal more evidential characteristics related to scientific values then the older theories. The two theories of permanentism and contractionism did not include much accuracy and evidential support that Wegener’s theory contained. Even though Wegener’s view of continental drift explained things in a more realistic manner then others theories, the problem of “continents drifting” was in fact at the time not logical to others. As quoted by Parson, “No known force was sufficient to push the continents around… Any force that was strong enough should literally have broken the continents to bits” (p. 37), meaning it seemed highly impossible at the time. Although the values in support of Wegner’s theory outweighed the opposing views, many geologists viewed the drift hypothesis as an unorthodox. Having accepted the new paradigm at the time, would have meant there was a connection in Kuhn’s fundamental differences that overpowered the theoretical values. -Nonetheless, plate tectonics were eventually discovered convincing Wegener’s hypothesis
Open Document