Customer Reviews

The Rejection of Continental Drift: Theory and Method in American Earth Science

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Naomi Oreskes has written a fascinating explanation of why the American geology community rejected, for half a century, what is the most important unifying principle in geology and arguably of science in the 20th century: continental drift. This book is brilliant storytelling, the history of science at its best.
Of course we all know the right answer. Continental drift seems so intuitively obvious now, the cornerstone of so many of our planet's processes, that it seems incomprehensible any intelligent person could have rejected Alfred Wegener's explanation, first published in 1912. The mystery deepens when we read that the concept was suggested earlier by an American geologist (Taylor) and that several highly respected American geologists did in fact accept it enthusiastically, as did the great majority of geologists in Europe, South Africa, and Australia.
Oreskes lays out for the non-specialist the history of related geological concepts as well as the drift controversy per se. She thoroughly punctures the myth that continental drift was rejected simply because Wegener had not proposed a causal mechanism, even though her citations show that this was used as an excuse after the fact. She explores and convincingly presents the deeper reasons. Her conclusions are not complimentary to either the American psyche nor to the scientific method. (Lord Kelvin's arrogant parochialism, rejecting all field data and bullying geologists with his theoretical calculations based totally on a naive model of simple heat conduction, seems particularly shallow.) Remarkably, the author manages to present a sympathetic side to the human dilemmas of the story, while not at all mitigating the really profound implications of a story that goes far beyond geology - the weakness, even fragility, of the scientific method.
This masterfully told story suggests a paraphrase of arch-conservative William F. Buckley's critique of capitalism and capitalists: the trouble with science is scientists.

This thorough and well written books is a very interesting examination of the idea of continental drift in American geology. Oreskes is particularly interested in the question of why American geoscientists were particularly resistant to the idea of continental drift. This apparently narrow question leads to both an interesting history of continental drift as a theory and some interesting discussion of the what makes scientific theories successful. In terms of the general history of continental drift, there is a really interesting discussion of prior theories of general earth history which connects continental drift with prior general theories of earth history. The age of the earth, whether the earth was cooling or had a major internal heat source, and some major geophysical questions were all part of the important background of continental drift theory. The conventional view of continental drift history casts Alfred Wegener as a heroic outsider ignored by the geologic community and whose ideas triumphed in a fairly abrupt post-WWWII revolution. In fact, Wegener was a widely respected geophysicist, his ideas were anticipated by others, including some American theorists, and his ideas were widely and usually respectfully discussed. Many influential geologists recognized the strength of Wegener's arguments.

There was, however, a distinct difference among different national communities in the reception of the idea of continental drift. Among British and continental European geologists, there was considerably more acceptance of continental drift as a strong idea than among American geologists, Some prominent non-American geologists, like the Engishman Arthur Holmes and the South African Clarence Du Toit, were strong advocates of continental drift. Holmes articulated a mechanistic model of drift that anticipated many of the features of modern plate tectonics and Du Toit provided powerful geologic evidence for drift. Even some important American geologists, like Reginald Daly (a Canadian by origin), entertained drift. By the end of the 1920s, however, the American geoscience community has largely rejected drift. Why did Americans reject drift so firmly?

Oreskes looks to a combination of factors. These include a distinctly American tradition of resistance to major deductive theoretical approaches to geohistory, another distinctly American emphasis on pluralism in developing hypotheses, a sometimes dogmatic emphasis on uniformitarianism, and what might be called a bad case of physics envy. For reasons that Oreskes lays out well, American geophysicists played a prominent role in rejection of continental drift. Despite the strong traditional geologic data for drift, geologists tended to be deferential to geophysical arguments. This combination of factors led to resistance to the idea of drift that was overcome only in the postwar period. The apparent sudden shift in American attitudes towards continental drift is less a Kuhnian paradigm shift than something of a generational change and American geologists catching up with the rest of the world. Oreskes has some nice discussions of what the history of American rejection and later acceptance of drift means for theories of scientific progress.

One factor that Oreskes may underplay is the role of general contingent factors like the Great Depression and WWI. In reading her account of the relevant research in the 1930s, one gets the impression that impressions were starting to shift in the 30s. I wonder if the Great Depression reduced the volume of geologic research and slowed the pace of change. The outbreak of WWII shifted the attention of geologists. Normal research did not resume until well after the war. Without the Great Depression and WWII, change might have come much earlier and appear less abrupt.

I am keenly interested in the science history, and Professor Oreskes has created, in "The Rejection...," the most well-written science book--by far!--I have had the good fortune to encounter. It is remarkably thorough and extraordinarily lucid, yet seems lean in its presentments that made this reader wish for more information, for multiple volumes of this amazing story by this outstanding author. "The Rejection" teaches discovery, history, scientific factions in competition, and it traces as true-to-life drama on an international scale how science really does advance, confound, retreat, and clarify an expanding body of essential knowledge. I recommend this tremendous work to each who has similar interests, and to all who simply appreciate the best of truly outstanding writing.

I lent my copy away, and miss it like a close friend lost.


PD Gonzales
Corvallis, OR
10/19/2009

I don't typically review books, but this one strikes me as so good as to require it.

This book has as good an explication of the imperfections of the "scientific method" (as practiced collectively by a discipline) as any book I have ever read. The discussion of the history and philosophy of individual Earth scientists from 1850-1950 is also particularly well done here.

Any practicing geologist will likey find this to be a useful read, and it may also be useful for a graduate class on scientific methodology.

I can highly recomend this book to anyone interested in the history and philosophy of the earth sciences. I have been looking for books on this subject for some time and this was certainly the "find" I was hoping for.

I am not, however, able to comment on the specifics of Oreskes' thesis, since the subject lies outside my field of expertise, but her more general comments about the status of science are certainly worth considering, and the evidence she marshalls is very impressive.

As a final point, I am putting my money where my mouth is and sending copies to various geologists and geophysicists that I know (perfect birthday gift for the earth scientist who already has her 4*4 and all the latest field gear)