Article contents
The Non-Kuhnian Nature of the Recent Revolution in the Earth Sciences
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 January 2023
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
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1981 Philosophy of Science Association
Footnotes
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
- 3
- Cited by