In Defence of Rationalist Accounts of the Continental Drift Debate: A Response to Pellegrini

Erik Weber (Corresponding author), Dunja Šešelja

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

This paper is a reaction to ‘Styles of Thought on the Continental Drift Debate’ by Pablo Pellegrini, published in this journal. The author argues that rationalist accounts of the continental drift debate fail because they overlook important issues. In this discussion we distinguish various forms of rationalism. Then we present a sophisticated rationalist account of the continental drift debate and argue that it is satisfactory because it explains all the central developments in that debate. Finally, we point to a problematic tension in Pellegrini’s paper and unravel an underlying ambiguity.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)481-490
Number of pages10
JournalJournal for General Philosophy of Science
Volume51
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2020

Keywords

  • Alfred Wegener
  • Continental drift
  • Empirical evidence
  • Pablo Pellegrini
  • Rationalist accounts of science

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'In Defence of Rationalist Accounts of the Continental Drift Debate: A Response to Pellegrini'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this