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

Erik Weber (Corresponding author), Dunja Šešelja

Onderzoeksoutput: Bijdrage aan tijdschriftTijdschriftartikelAcademicpeer review

Samenvatting

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.

Originele taal-2Engels
Pagina's (van-tot)481-490
Aantal pagina's10
TijdschriftJournal for General Philosophy of Science
Volume51
Nummer van het tijdschrift3
DOI's
StatusGepubliceerd - 1 sep 2020

Vingerafdruk

Duik in de onderzoeksthema's van 'In Defence of Rationalist Accounts of the Continental Drift Debate: A Response to Pellegrini'. Samen vormen ze een unieke vingerafdruk.

Citeer dit