Picture 1 of 1
Gallery
Picture 1 of 1
Have one to sell?
The Rejection of Continental Drift: Theory and Method in American Earth Science,
US $34.99
ApproximatelyRM 147.90
Condition:
Very Good
A book that has been read but is in excellent condition. No obvious damage to the cover, with the dust jacket included for hard covers. No missing or damaged pages, no creases or tears, and no underlining/highlighting of text or writing in the margins. May be very minimal identifying marks on the inside cover. Very minimal wear and tear.
Oops! Looks like we're having trouble connecting to our server.
Refresh your browser window to try again.
Shipping:
US $6.22 (approx RM 26.29) USPS Media MailTM.
Located in: Banks, Oregon, United States
Delivery:
Estimated between Tue, 26 Aug and Fri, 29 Aug to 94104
Returns:
30 days return. Seller pays for return shipping.
Coverage:
Read item description or contact seller for details. See all detailsSee all details on coverage
(Not eligible for eBay purchase protection programmes)
Shop with confidence
Seller assumes all responsibility for this listing.
eBay item number:127094266408
Item specifics
- Condition
- ISBN
- 9780195117332
About this product
Product Identifiers
Publisher
Oxford University Press, Incorporated
ISBN-10
0195117336
ISBN-13
9780195117332
eBay Product ID (ePID)
1045589
Product Key Features
Number of Pages
432 Pages
Language
English
Publication Name
Rejection of Continental Drift : Theory and Method in American Earth Science
Publication Year
1999
Subject
Earth Sciences / Geology, History
Type
Textbook
Subject Area
Science
Format
Trade Paperback
Dimensions
Item Height
1 in
Item Weight
24.7 Oz
Item Length
9.1 in
Item Width
6.1 in
Additional Product Features
Intended Audience
College Audience
LCCN
98-004161
TitleLeading
The
Reviews
"Oreskes (Univ. of California, San Diego) argues that 'science is about how belief gets formulated,' and that the criteria used in the formulation of belief are historically contingent and play a significant role in constraining the boundaries of scientific knowledge in a cultural and social context. Using the history of evolution of the continental drift theory, she discusses how US earth scientists came to reject this theory in the 1920s and '30s because accepting the ideas supporting it would have forced them to change their methodological beliefs and valued forms of scientific practice. Oreskes utilizes the case of the history of continental drift to show that scientific methodology is diverse and evolves through time, and that the mechanics of scientific research and the context of discovery are important, just as the context of justification is important in evaluating the generation of scientific knowledge. . . . An exemplary resource. Recommended. All levels."--Choice"With all their resources, American geoscientists do much of the world's best geology. Thus some of them may be embarrassed that their predecessors were so slow to embrace continental drift or convection currents in the mantle and were initially so resistant to the doctrines of plate tectonics. Although there must be historical reasons for this reluctance to accept mobilist doctrines, hitherto they have not been examined in detail. Now Naomi Oreskes has accomplished the task in The Rejection of Continental Drift. Based on extensive archival research and Oreskes's studies over the past 20 years, her admirably clear and well-illustrated account is scientifically, philosophically, historically, and sociologically well-informed. All is achieved without recourse to esoteric detail or any mathematics: she is after concepts."--Science"During the 1920s and '30s, prominent American geologists were generally opposed, sometimes virulently so, to continental drift, a new theory proposed by Alfred Wegener. On the opposite side of a furtively widening transatlantic schism, earth scientists were inclined to explore the idea, or at least to regard it with more muted skepticism. Wegener's original 'theory' was incomplete and mechanically unsound, and some of his European colleagues actually bent their effort toward developing physical models in support of drift. After all, the theory did summarize a set of observations that hinted at a broader vision of geological mapping than was currently in vogue. However, Americans appear to have been committed to demonstrating the impossibility of drift. Naomi Oreskes has carefully sifted the archival ashes of the early stages of this conflagration, producing an analysis of scientific practice that challenges previous accounts of the drift controversy."--American Scientist"On April 7, 1998, there was a note in Eos by David Stern that included a perceptive and amusing quotation from Teddy Bullard on the question, which has been recently reached something of a culmination in an important new book, The Rejection of Continental Drift, by Naomi Oreskes and published by Oxford in 1999."--EOS, "Oreskes (Univ. of California, San Diego) argues that 'science is about how belief gets formulated,' and that the criteria used in the formulation of belief are historically contingent and play a significant role in constraining the boundaries of scientific knowledge in a cultural and social context. Using the history of evolution of the continental drift theory, she discusses how US earth scientists came to reject this theory in the 1920s and '30s because accepting the ideas supporting it would have forced them to change their methodological beliefs and valued forms of scientific practice. Oreskes utilizes the case of the history of continental drift to show that scientific methodology is diverse and evolves through time, and that the mechanics of scientific research and the context of discovery are important, just as the context of justification is important in evaluating the generation of scientific knowledge. . . . An exemplary resource. Recommended. All levels."--Choice "With all their resources, American geoscientists do much of the world's best geology. Thus some of them may be embarrassed that their predecessors were so slow to embrace continental drift or convection currents in the mantle and were initially so resistant to the doctrines of plate tectonics. Although there must be historical reasons for this reluctance to accept mobilist doctrines, hitherto they have not been examined in detail. Now Naomi Oreskes has accomplished the task in The Rejection of Continental Drift. Based on extensive archival research and Oreskes's studies over the past 20 years, her admirably clear and well-illustrated account is scientifically, philosophically, historically, and sociologically well-informed. All is achieved without recourse to esoteric detail or any mathematics: she is after concepts."--Science "During the 1920s and '30s, prominent American geologists were generally opposed, sometimes virulently so, to continental drift, a new theory proposed by Alfred Wegener. On the opposite side of a furtively widening transatlantic schism, earth scientists were inclined to explore the idea, or at least to regard it with more muted skepticism. Wegener's original 'theory' was incomplete and mechanically unsound, and some of his European colleagues actually bent their effort toward developing physical models in support of drift. After all, the theory did summarize a set of observations that hinted at a broader vision of geological mapping than was currently in vogue. However, Americans appear to have been committed to demonstrating the impossibility of drift. Naomi Oreskes has carefully sifted the archival ashes of the early stages of this conflagration, producing an analysis of scientific practice that challenges previous accounts of the drift controversy."--American Scientist "On April 7, 1998, there was a note in Eos by David Stern that included a perceptive and amusing quotation from Teddy Bullard on the question, which has been recently reached something of a culmination in an important new book, The Rejection of Continental Drift, by Naomi Oreskes and published by Oxford in 1999."--EOS, "During the 1920s and '30s, prominent American geologists were generallyopposed, sometimes virulently so, to continental drift, a new theory proposed byAlfred Wegener. On the opposite side of a furtively widening transatlanticschism, earth scientists were inclined to explore the idea, or at least toregard it with more muted skepticism. Wegener's original 'theory' was incompleteand mechanically unsound, and some of his European colleagues actually benttheir effort toward developing physical models in support of drift. After all,the theory did summarize a set of observations that hinted at a broader visionof geological mapping than was currently in vogue. However, Americans appear tohave been committed to demonstrating the impossibility of drift. Naomi Oreskeshas carefully sifted the archival ashes of the early stages of thisconflagration, producing an analysis of scientific practice that challengesprevious accounts of the drift controversy."--American Scientist, Oreskes's book contains much pertinent information that will be useful to those interested in the history of tectonics in the twentieth century, and she presents it lucidly, in a well-organized manner., "Oreskes (Univ. of California, San Diego) argues that 'science is about how belief gets formulated,' and that the criteria used in the formulation of belief are historically contingent and play a significant role in constraining the boundaries of scientific knowledge in a cultural and social context. Using the history of evolution of the continental drift theory, she discusses how US earth scientists came to reject this theory in the 1920s and '30s because accepting the ideas supporting it would have forced them to change their methodological beliefs and valued forms of scientific practice. Oreskes utilizes the case of the history of continental drift to show that scientific methodology is diverse and evolves through time, and that the mechanics of scientific research and the context of discovery are important, just as the context of justification is important in evaluating the generation of scientific knowledge. . . . An exemplary resource. Recommended. All levels."-- Choice "With all their resources, American geoscientists do much of the world's best geology. Thus some of them may be embarrassed that their predecessors were so slow to embrace continental drift or convection currents in the mantle and were initially so resistant to the doctrines of plate tectonics. Although there must be historical reasons for this reluctance to accept mobilist doctrines, hitherto they have not been examined in detail. Now Naomi Oreskes has accomplished the task in The Rejection of Continental Drift . Based on extensive archival research and Oreskes's studies over the past 20 years, her admirably clear and well-illustrated account is scientifically, philosophically, historically, and sociologically well-informed. All is achieved without recourse to esoteric detail or any mathematics: she is after concepts."-- Science "During the 1920s and '30s, prominent American geologists were generally opposed, sometimes virulently so, to continental drift, a new theory proposed by Alfred Wegener. On the opposite side of a furtively widening transatlantic schism, earth scientists were inclined to explore the idea, or at least to regard it with more muted skepticism. Wegener's original 'theory' was incomplete and mechanically unsound, and some of his European colleagues actually bent their effort toward developing physical models in support of drift. After all, the theory did summarize a set of observations that hinted at a broader vision of geological mapping than was currently in vogue. However, Americans appear to have been committed to demonstrating the impossibility of drift. Naomi Oreskes has carefully sifted the archival ashes of the early stages of this conflagration, producing an analysis of scientific practice that challenges previous accounts of the drift controversy."-- American Scientist "On April 7, 1998, there was a note in Eos by David Stern that included a perceptive and amusing quotation from Teddy Bullard on the question, which has been recently reached something of a culmination in an important new book, The Rejection of Continental Drift, by Naomi Oreskes and published by Oxford in 1999."-- EOS, "Oreskes (Univ. of California, San Diego) argues that 'science is abouthow belief gets formulated,' and that the criteria used in the formulation ofbelief are historically contingent and play a significant role in constrainingthe boundaries of scientific knowledge in a cultural and social context. Usingthe history of evolution of the continental drift theory, she discusses how USearth scientists came to reject this theory in the 1920s and '30s becauseaccepting the ideas supporting it would have forced them to change theirmethodological beliefs and valued forms of scientific practice. Oreskes utilizesthe case of the history of continental drift to show that scientific methodologyis diverse and evolves through time, and that the mechanics of scientificresearch and the context of discovery are important, just as the context ofjustification is important in evaluating the generation of scientific knowledge.. . . An exemplary resource. Recommended. All levels."--Choice, "On April 7, 1998, there was a note in Eos by David Stern that included aperceptive and amusing quotation from Teddy Bullard on the question, which hasbeen recently reached something of a culmination in an important new book, TheRejection of Continental Drift, by Naomi Oreskes and published by Oxford in1999."--EOS, "Oreskes (Univ. of California, San Diego) argues that 'science is about how belief gets formulated,' and that the criteria used in the formulation of belief are historically contingent and play a significant role in constraining the boundaries of scientific knowledge in a cultural and social context. Using the history of evolution of the continental drift theory, she discusses how US earth scientists came to reject this theory in the 1920s and '30s because accepting the ideas supporting it would have forced them to change their methodological beliefs and valued forms of scientific practice. Oreskes utilizes the case of the history of continental drift to show that scientific methodology is diverse and evolves through time, and that the mechanics of scientific research and the context of discovery are important, just as the context of justification is important in evaluating the generation of scientific knowledge. . . . An exemplary resource. Recommended. All levels."--Choice "With all their resources, American geoscientists do much of the world's best geology. Thus some of them may be embarrassed that their predecessors were so slow to embrace continental drift or convection currents in the mantle and were initially so resistant to the doctrines of plate tectonics. Although there must be historical reasons for this reluctance to accept mobilist doctrines, hitherto they have not been examined in detail. Now Naomi Oreskes has accomplished the task inThe Rejection of Continental Drift. Based on extensive archival research and Oreskes's studies over the past 20 years, her admirably clear and well-illustrated account is scientifically, philosophically, historically, and sociologically well-informed. All is achieved without recourse to esoteric detail or any mathematics: she is after concepts."--Science "During the 1920s and '30s, prominent American geologists were generally opposed, sometimes virulently so, to continental drift, a new theory proposed by Alfred Wegener. On the opposite side of a furtively widening transatlantic schism, earth scientists were inclined to explore the idea, or at least to regard it with more muted skepticism. Wegener's original 'theory' was incomplete and mechanically unsound, and some of his European colleagues actually bent their effort toward developing physical models in support of drift. After all, the theory did summarize a set of observations that hinted at a broader vision of geological mapping than was currently in vogue. However, Americans appear to have been committed to demonstrating the impossibility of drift. Naomi Oreskes has carefully sifted the archival ashes of the early stages of this conflagration, producing an analysis of scientific practice that challenges previous accounts of the drift controversy."--American Scientist "On April 7, 1998, there was a note in Eos by David Stern that included a perceptive and amusing quotation from Teddy Bullard on the question, which has been recently reached something of a culmination in an important new book, The Rejection of Continental Drift, by Naomi Oreskes and published by Oxford in 1999."--EOS, "On April 7, 1998, there was a note in Eos by David Stern that included a perceptive and amusing quotation from Teddy Bullard on the question, which has been recently reached something of a culmination in an important new book, The Rejection of Continental Drift, by Naomi Oreskes and publishedby Oxford in 1999."--EOS, "With all their resources, American geoscientists do much of the world'sbest geology. Thus some of them may be embarrassed that their predecessors wereso slow to embrace continental drift or convection currents in the mantle andwere initially so resistant to the doctrines of plate tectonics. Although theremust be historical reasons for this reluctance to accept mobilist doctrines,hitherto they have not been examined in detail. Now Naomi Oreskes hasaccomplished the task in The Rejection of Continental Drift. Based on extensivearchival research and Oreskes's studies over the past 20 years, her admirablyclear and well-illustrated account is scientifically, philosophically,historically, and sociologically well-informed. All is achieved without recourseto esoteric detail or any mathematics: she is after concepts."--Science, "During the 1920s and '30s, prominent American geologists were generally opposed, sometimes virulently so, to continental drift, a new theory proposed by Alfred Wegener. On the opposite side of a furtively widening transatlantic schism, earth scientists were inclined to explore the idea, or atleast to regard it with more muted skepticism. Wegener's original 'theory' was incomplete and mechanically unsound, and some of his European colleagues actually bent their effort toward developing physical models in support of drift. After all, the theory did summarize a set of observations thathinted at a broader vision of geological mapping than was currently in vogue. However, Americans appear to have been committed to demonstrating the impossibility of drift. Naomi Oreskes has carefully sifted the archival ashes of the early stages of this conflagration, producing an analysis ofscientific practice that challenges previous accounts of the drift controversy."--American Scientist, "With all their resources, American geoscientists do much of the world's best geology. Thus some of them may be embarrassed that their predecessors were so slow to embrace continental drift or convection currents in the mantle and were initially so resistant to the doctrines of platetectonics. Although there must be historical reasons for this reluctance to accept mobilist doctrines, hitherto they have not been examined in detail. Now Naomi Oreskes has accomplished the task in The Rejection of Continental Drift. Based on extensive archival research and Oreskes's studies overthe past 20 years, her admirably clear and well-illustrated account is scientifically, philosophically, historically, and sociologically well-informed. All is achieved without recourse to esoteric detail or any mathematics: she is after concepts."--Science, "Oreskes (Univ. of California, San Diego) argues that 'science is about how belief gets formulated,' and that the criteria used in the formulation of belief are historically contingent and play a significant role in constraining the boundaries of scientific knowledge in a cultural and socialcontext. Using the history of evolution of the continental drift theory, she discusses how US earth scientists came to reject this theory in the 1920s and '30s because accepting the ideas supporting it would have forced them to change their methodological beliefs and valued forms of scientificpractice. Oreskes utilizes the case of the history of continental drift to show that scientific methodology is diverse and evolves through time, and that the mechanics of scientific research and the context of discovery are important, just as the context of justification is important in evaluatingthe generation of scientific knowledge. . . . An exemplary resource. Recommended. All levels."--Choice
Dewey Edition
21
Illustrated
Yes
Dewey Decimal
551.136
Table Of Content
I. Not the Mechanism1. Two Visions of the Earth2. The Collapse of Thermal Contraction3. To Reconcile Historical Geology with Isotasy: Continental Drift4. Drift Mechanisms in the 1920sII. Theory and Method5. From Fact to Theory6. The Short Step Backward7. Uniformitarianism and UnityIII. A Revolution in Acceptance8. Direct and Indirect Evidence9. An Evidentiary and Epistemic Shift10. The Depersonalization of Geology
Synopsis
In 1915, when Alfred Wegener proposed his theory of continental drift (that the positions the earth's continents are in flux), American earth scientists considered it a highly radical, new vision of the earth. British scientists, on the other hand, viewed the theory as a pleasing confirmation of a long-suspected notion. This initial difference in reaction continued for about fifty years afterward. This book compares the differences in reaction, proposing that the differing methodological commitments of the countries, rather than theoretical beliefs, had played a large role in the acceptance of the theory. it will also complement existing work on continental drift and the emergence of the study of plate tectonics., In the early twentieth century, American earth scientists were united in their opposition to the new--and highly radical--notion of continental drift, even going so far as to label the theory "unscientific." Some fifty years later, however, continental drift was heralded as a major scientific breakthrough and today it is accepted as scientific fact. Why did American geologists reject so adamantly an idea that is now considered a cornerstone of the discipline? And why were their European colleagues receptive to it so much earlier? This book, based on extensive archival research on three continents, provides important new answers while giving the first detailed account of the American geological community in the first half of the century. Challenging previous historical work on this episode, Naomi Oreskes shows that continental drift was not rejected for the lack of a causal mechanism, but because it seemed to conflict with the basic standards of practice in American geology. This account provides a compelling look at how scientific ideas are made and unmade., In the early 20th century, American earth scientists vociferously opposed the new, and highly radical, notion of continental drift. Yet 50 years later the same idea was heralded as a major scientific breakthrough, and today continental drift is accepted as a scientific fact. Why did American geologists reject so adamantly an idea that is now considered a cornerstone of the discipline? And why did they react so much more negatively than their European counterparts? This book, based primarily on archival resources, provides answers to these questions. It complements existing work on continental drift and the emergence of the theory of plate tectonics by providing the first detailed historical account of the American geological community in the 1920s. It also challenges previous historical work on this episode, much of which ascribes the rejection of continental drift to the lack of an adequate causal mechanism. Instead, the author shows that the rejection was largely based on the view that continental drift challenged the basic methodological principles and standards of practice in American earth science. In uncovering the historical roots of this debate, the author seeks to clarify the relationship between scientific practice and theory while also providing a test case for related philosophical questions.
LC Classification Number
QE511.5.O74 1999
Item description from the seller
Seller feedback (5,607)
- e***k (2770)- Feedback left by buyer.Past monthVerified purchaseExcellent vinyl quality. Very satisfied thanks
- s***p (285)- Feedback left by buyer.Past monthVerified purchaseGreat item. Better in hand then the description. Good seller. A +++++
- a***m (16)- Feedback left by buyer.Past monthVerified purchaseIt appeared to be in good condition, though one CD track is unplayable. Still, it was a decent value. And cosmetically, the CD pack was very good + in appearance.
More to explore :
- Earth Science American Science & Medicine Antiquarian & Collectible Books,
- Earth Science North American Antiquarian & Collectible Books,
- North American Illustrated Antiquarian & Collectible Books Earth Science,
- North American Signed Antiquarian & Collectible Books Earth Science,
- North American Earth Science Hardcover Antiquarian & Collectible Books,
- Earth Science North American 1950-Now Antiquarian & Collectible Books,
- Earth Science North American 1850-1899 Antiquarian & Collectible Books,
- Nonfiction Books Fiction & Earth Sciences,
- Leather Earth Science Science & Medicine Antiquarian & Collectible Books,
- Science & Medicine Earth Science 1900-1949 Antiquarian & Collectible Books
Seller feedback (5,607)
- e***k (2770)- Feedback left by buyer.Past monthVerified purchaseExcellent vinyl quality. Very satisfied thanks
- s***p (285)- Feedback left by buyer.Past monthVerified purchaseGreat item. Better in hand then the description. Good seller. A +++++
- a***m (16)- Feedback left by buyer.Past monthVerified purchaseIt appeared to be in good condition, though one CD track is unplayable. Still, it was a decent value. And cosmetically, the CD pack was very good + in appearance.