Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g7rbq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-04T11:19:31.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Kind of Revolution Occurred in Geology?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Michael Ruse
Michael Ruse*
Affiliation:
University of Guelph
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The one thing upon which we can all agree is that just over ten years ago a major revolution occurred in the science of geology. Geologists switched from accepting a static earth-picture, to endorsing a vision of an earth with its surface constantly in motion. (Cox [4]; Hallam [12]; Marvin [28]; Wilson [56]). It is true that early in this century the German geologist Alfred Wegener argued that the continents as we today find them have “drifted” to their positions from other positions widely different. However, other than amongst a number of scientists drawn almost exclusively from the Southern Hemisphere, his ideas fell on deaf — or more precisely, contemptuous — ears. Then in the mid 1960’s, almost literally overnight, the geological community swung around and embraced the hypothesis of continental drift, or what we shall see is perhaps more accurately called “plate tectonics”.

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. 240 - 273
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.)

References

[1] Atwater, T. “Letter to A. Cox.” (As Reprinted in [4]. Pages 535–536.Google Scholar
[2] Bullard, E. et al. “The Fit of the Continents around the Atlantic.” In “A Symposium on Continental Drift.” Edited by P.M.S. Blackett et al. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. A, 258, number 1088 (1965): 41–51.Google Scholar
[3] Chamberlin, R.T. “Some of the Objections to Wegener’s Theory.” In Theory of Continental Drift. Edited by W.A.J.M. van Waterschoot van der Gracht, et al. Tulsa: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 1928. Pages 83–87.Google Scholar
[4] Cox, A. (ed.). Plate Tectonics and Geomagnetic Reversals. San Francisco: Freeman, 1973.Google Scholar
[5] Darwin, C. The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs. London: Smith Elder, 1842.Google Scholar
[6] du Toit, A.L. Our Wandering Continents. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1937.Google Scholar
[7] Frankel, H. “The Career of Continental Drift Theory: An Application of Imré Lakatos’ Analysis of Scientific Growth to the Rise of Drift Theory.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. 10 (1979): 21–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8] Ghiselin, M. The Triumph of the Darwinian Method. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.Google Scholar
[9] Gilluly, J. “Plate Tectonics and Magmatic Evolution.” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 82 (1971): 2382–2396. (As Reprinted in [4]. Pages 648–658.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10] Gilluly, J. et al. Principles of Geology. San Francisco: Freeman, 1959; 4th ed. 1974.Google Scholar
[11] Gould, S.J. Ever Since Darwin. New York: Norton, 1977.Google Scholar
[12] Hallam, A. A Revolution in the Earth Sciences: From Continental Drift to Plate Tectonics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973.Google Scholar
[13] Hess, H.H. “History of Ocean Basins.” In Petrologic Studies: A Volume to Honor A.F. Buddington. Edited by Engel, A. et al. New York Geological Society of America, 1962. Pages 599–620. (As Reprinted in [4]. Pages 23-38).Google Scholar
[14] Holmes, A. “Radioactivity and Earth Movements.” Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow 18 (1931): 559–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15] Hull, D.L. “Reduction in Genetics — Biology or Philosophy?” Philosophy of Science 39 (1972): 491–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16] Hull, D.L. “Reduction in Genetics — Doing the Impossible.” In Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Volume IV. (Proceedings of the 1972 International Congress for Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science.) Edited by Suppes, P. et al. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1973. Pages 619–635.Google Scholar
[17] Hull, D.L. Philosophy of Biological Science. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1974.Google Scholar
[18] Hull, D.L. “Informal Aspects of Theory Reduction.” In PSA 1974. Edited by Cohen, R.S. et al. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1976. Pages 653–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19] Isacks, B. et al. “Seismology and the New Global Tectonics.” Journal of Geophysical Research 73 (1968): 5855–5899. (As Reprinted in [4]. Pages 358–400.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20] Kitts, D.B. “Continental Drift and Scientific Revolution.” American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 58 (1974): 2490–2496. (As Reprinted in Kitts, D.B. The Structure of Geology. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1974. Pages 115–127.)Google Scholar
[21] Kuhn, T. The Copernican Revolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957.Google Scholar
[22] Kuhn, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
[23] Laudan, L. “William Whewell on the Consilience of Inductions.” Monist 55 (1971): 368–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[24] Laudan, L. Progress and Its Problems: Toward a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977.Google Scholar
[25] Laudan, R. “William Smith. Stratigraphy without Paleontology.” Centaurus 20 (1976): 210–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[26] Lyell, C. The Principles of Geology. 1st ed. London: John Murray, 1830-33.Google Scholar
[27] Lyell, K.(ed.). Life, Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell, Bart. London: Murray, 1881.Google Scholar
[28] Marvin, U.B. Continental Drift: The Evolution of a Concept. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1973.Google Scholar
[29] Matuyama, M. “On the Direction of Magnetisation of Basalt in Japan, Tyosen and Manchuria.” Japanese Academy Proceedings 5 (1929): 203–205.(As Reprinted in [4]. Pages 154–156.)Google Scholar
[30] Mayr, E. “The Nature of the Darwinian Revolution.” Science 176 (1972): 981–989.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[31] Plafker, G. “Tectonic Deformation Associated with the 1964 Alaska Earthquake.” Science 148 (1965): 1675–1687. (As Reprinted in 14]. Pages 311–331.)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[32] Popper, K.R. Objective Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
[33] Rudwick, M.J.S. “The Strategy of Lyell’s Principles of Geology.” Isis 61 (1969): 5–33.Google Scholar
[34] Rudwick, M.J.S. The Meaning of Fossils. London: Macdonald, 1972.Google Scholar
[35] Rudwick, M.J.S. “Charles Lyell Speaks in the Lecture Theatre.” British Journal for the History of Science 32 (1976): 147–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[36] Ruse, M. The Philosophy of Biology. London: Hutchinson, 1973.Google Scholar
[37] Ruse, M. “Darwin’s Debt to Philosophy: An Examination of the Influence of the Philosophical Ideas of John F.W. Herschel and William Whewell on the Development of Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 6 (1975): 159–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[38] Ruse, M. “Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution: An Analysis.” Journal of the History of Biology 8 (1975): 219–241.Google ScholarPubMed
[39] Ruse, M. “Charles Lyell and the Philosophers of Science.” British Journal for the History of Science 9 (1976): 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[40] Ruse, M. “The Scientific Methodology of William Whewell.” Centaurus 20 (1976): 227–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[41] Ruse, M. “Reduction in Genetics.” In PSA 1974. Edited by R.S. Cohen et al. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1976. Pages 633–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[42] Ruse, M. “Karl Popper’s Philosophy of Biology.” Philosophy of Science 44 (1977): 638–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[43] Ruse, M. Sociobiology: Sense or Nonsense? Dordrecht: Reidel, 1979.Google Scholar
[44] Ruse, M. The Darwinian Revolution: Science Red in Tooth and Claw. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
[45] Schaffner, K.F. “Approaches to Reduction.” Philosophy of Science 34 (1967): 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[46] Schaffner, K.F. “The Watson-Crick Model and Reductionism.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 20 (1969): 325–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[47] Schaffner, K.F. “Reductionism in Biology: Prospects and Problems.” In PSA 1974. Edited by Cohen, R.S. et al. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1976. Pages 613–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[48] Suppe, F. The Structure of Scientific Theories. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1974.Google Scholar
[49] Sykes, L.R. “Mechanism of Earthquakes and the Nature of Faulting on the Mid-Ocean Ridges.” Journal of Geophysical Research 72 (1967): 2131–2151. (As Reprinted in [4]. Pages 332–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[50] Toulmin, S. Human Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
[51] Vine, F.J. and Matthews, D.H. “Magnetic Anomalies over Oceanic Ridges.” Nature 199 (1963): 947–949. (As Reprinted in [4]. Pages 232–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[52] Wegener, A. Die Enstehung der Kontinente und Ozeane. Braunschweig, Germany: Vieweg, 1915.Google Scholar
[53] Whewell, W. “Principles of Geology … by Charles Lyell … Vol. II.” Quarterly Review 47 (1832): 103–132.Google Scholar
[54] Whewell, W. Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences. London: Parker, 1840.Google Scholar
[55] Wilson, L. Charles Lyell. The Years to 1841: The Revolution in Geology. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
[56] Wilson, J.T. (ed.). Continents Adrift. San Francisco: Freeman, 1970.Google Scholar