Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:24:23.530Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Philosophers Adrift? Comments on the Alleged Disunity of Method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Matthias Kaiser
Matthias Kaiser*
Affiliation:
The National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology, Norway
*
‡Send reprint requests to the author, The National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology, Gaustadalléen 21, The Research Park, N-0371 Oslo 3, Norway.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

R. Laudan and L. Laudan (1989) have put forth a new model intended to solve the problem of disagreement, the problem of consensus, and the problem of innovation in science. In support of this model they cite the history of the acceptance of continental drift, or plate tectonics. In this discussion, I claim that this episode does not constitute an instance of their model. The historical evidence does not support this model. Indeed, closer examination seems to weaken it. I also sketch an alternative model.

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , September 1993 , pp. 500 - 512
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1993

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

†

I want to thank Robert Marc Friedman, Reidar Lie, and Nils Roll-Hansen for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References

Blackett, P. M. S.; Bullard, E.; and Runcorn, S. K. (eds.) (1965), A Symposium on Continental Drift. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
Frankel, H. (1979), “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: 21–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankel, H. (1987), “The Continental Drift Debate”, in Engelhardt, H. T. and Caplan, A. L. (eds.), Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 203–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garland, G. D. (ed.) (1966), Continental Drift. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irving, E. (1964), Paleomagnetism and Its Application to Geological and Geophysical Problems. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kaiser, M. (1991), “From Rocks to Graphs—The Shaping of Phenomena”, Synthese 89: 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1977), Progress and Its Problems: Toward a Theory of Scientific Growth. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Laudan, R. and Laudan, L. (1989), “Dominance and the Disunity of Method: Solving the Problems of Innovation and Consensus”, Philosophy of Science 56: 221–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeGrand, H. E. (1988), Drifting Continents and Shifting Theories: The Modern Revolution in Geology and Scientific Change. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Menard, H. W. (1986), The Ocean of Truth: A Personal History of Global Tectonics. Princeton: University of Princeton Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oreskes, N. (1988), “The Rejection of Continental Drift”, Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 18: 311–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runcorn, S. K. (1955), “The Permanent Magnetization of Rocks”, Endeavour 14: 152–159.Google Scholar
Runcorn, S. K. (ed.) (1962), Continental Drift. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Takeuchi, H. et al. (1970), Debate About the Earth: Approach to Geophysics Through Analysis of Continental Drift. Revised. San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper & Company.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. T. (1963), “Continental Drift”, Scientific American 208: 86–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar