1960s was when the hypothesis of continental drift was empirically confirmed with geophysical evidence, but it was a prominent family of hypotheses (contending with isostatic models) in decades prior.
European geologists were generally receptive to the idea of continental drift as early as the 1920s, and by the 1940s it was the working assumption for most field work. The only geologists to dismiss the idea initially were part of a North American contingent.
As to why the Americans in particular, there were a few reasons, but a big one is that they didn’t read German and the first English edition of Wegener’s book was a draft-quality translation with issues relating to clarity and “tone.” The author was perceived to be dismissive/unaware of current work in the field, culminating in a summit seminar where a talk was given challenging the hypothesis.
Interestingly, the author actually attended this talk, but chose to remain silent. He never said why he didn’t defend his idea. I would guess language barrier and shyness but I don’t know.
Regardless, the matter was considered closed by those in attendance and for some time his theory’s rate of acceptance among North American geologists lagged behind.
Please don’t conflate American scientists and American politicians. There is absolutely zero intersection between those two groups, and if you don’t think American scientists are on the forefront of nearly every field of research I don’t know what to tell you…
You’re conflating modern sciences with historic geology, and tossing in a dash of denialism to boot. There’s a well known adage called Planck’s principle (IIRC) which basically says that science advances one funeral at a time:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Also, science was very much a good ol’ boys club of people that often came from wealthy backgrounds because they could afford the education to become scientists, so they were very much big egos trying to keep their theories and discoveries attached to their names even in the face of more correct or contradicting information.
Nowadays the egos may not be quite as large, though there definitely plenty that resist change due to ego or other personal interest, but absolutely politics influences science in multiple ways. It determines who gets funding, what commercial interests pay and benefit from the discoveries, and what gets presented to the public.
Sure would be nice if all scientific results were unbiased, accessible, and free, but unfortunately that’s not always the case.
I lack the knowledge to add anything important to that topic but I wanna say, it seems ridiculous for this to be true. Not believing a scientific theory due to tone.
1960s was when the hypothesis of continental drift was empirically confirmed with geophysical evidence, but it was a prominent family of hypotheses (contending with isostatic models) in decades prior.
European geologists were generally receptive to the idea of continental drift as early as the 1920s, and by the 1940s it was the working assumption for most field work. The only geologists to dismiss the idea initially were part of a North American contingent.
As to why the Americans in particular, there were a few reasons, but a big one is that they didn’t read German and the first English edition of Wegener’s book was a draft-quality translation with issues relating to clarity and “tone.” The author was perceived to be dismissive/unaware of current work in the field, culminating in a summit seminar where a talk was given challenging the hypothesis.
Interestingly, the author actually attended this talk, but chose to remain silent. He never said why he didn’t defend his idea. I would guess language barrier and shyness but I don’t know.
Regardless, the matter was considered closed by those in attendance and for some time his theory’s rate of acceptance among North American geologists lagged behind.
I’m seeing a recurring theme
Please don’t conflate American scientists and American politicians. There is absolutely zero intersection between those two groups, and if you don’t think American scientists are on the forefront of nearly every field of research I don’t know what to tell you…
You’re conflating modern sciences with historic geology, and tossing in a dash of denialism to boot. There’s a well known adage called Planck’s principle (IIRC) which basically says that science advances one funeral at a time:
Also, science was very much a good ol’ boys club of people that often came from wealthy backgrounds because they could afford the education to become scientists, so they were very much big egos trying to keep their theories and discoveries attached to their names even in the face of more correct or contradicting information.
Nowadays the egos may not be quite as large, though there definitely plenty that resist change due to ego or other personal interest, but absolutely politics influences science in multiple ways. It determines who gets funding, what commercial interests pay and benefit from the discoveries, and what gets presented to the public.
Sure would be nice if all scientific results were unbiased, accessible, and free, but unfortunately that’s not always the case.
I lack the knowledge to add anything important to that topic but I wanna say, it seems ridiculous for this to be true. Not believing a scientific theory due to tone.
Agreed. It’s an instructive anecdote re: the importance of presentational clarity but also of charitable interpretation.