Advertisement

Foundations of Science

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 17–35 | Cite as

Drift Theory and Plate Tectonics: A Case of Embedding in Geology

  • María Caamaño-AlegreEmail author
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to elucidate the semantic relation between continental drift and plate tectonics. The numerous attempts to account for this case in either Kuhnian or Lakatosian terms have been convincingly dismissed by Rachel Laudan (PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Symposia and Invited Papers, 1978), who nevertheless acknowledged that there was not yet a plausible alternative to explain the so called “geological revolution”. Several decades later, the epistemological side of this revolution has received much attention (Ruse in The darwinian paradigm, essays on its history, philosophy and religious implications. London, Routledge, 1981/1989; Thagard in Conceptual revolutions. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1992; Marvin in Metascience 10:208–217, 2001; Oreskes in Plate tectonics: an insiders’ history of the modern theory of the earth. Westview Press, Boulder, 2003), while the semantic relation between drift theory and plate tectonics has remained mainly unexplored. In studying this case under a new light, the notion of embedding, as distinguished from other sorts of intertheoretical relations (Moulines in Cognitio Humana—Dynamik des Wissens und der Werte. XVII, Institut für Philosophie der Universität Leipzig, Leipzig, 1996, Time, chance, and reduction: philosophical aspects of statistical mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010, Metatheoria 1(2):11–27, 2011), will have a particular significance. After formally analyzing the relationship between continental drift and plate tectonics, it will become evident that the models of drift theory are part of the models of plate tectonics, thereby fulfilling the conditions for embedding. All theoretical concepts from drift theory are presupposed in some theoretical concepts from plate tectonics, and all empirical concepts of the former are shared by the latter. Furthermore, all the successful paradigmatic applications of continental drift are also successful applications of plate tectonics. As a consequence, under the label “geological revolution”, we actually find a salient historical case of cumulative progress across theory change.

Keywords

Embedding Geological revolution Plate tectonics Continental drift Partial substructures 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am thankful to José Díez for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. Thanks also to the participants in the 8th and 9th editions of the Latin American Conference on Structuralist Metatheory (Mexico DF 2012, Barcelona 2014), where I had the chance to get a valuable feedback on different aspects of this work. Thanks specially to Matías Aimino and Adriana Gonzalo fo their illuminating discussion on the principle of isostasy. My gratitude also to Jurgen Strehlau for his useful suggestions to improve my analysis of the historical case. Finally, this paper has greatly benefited from comments by three anonymous referees. This research was financially supported by the research projects "Pragmatics as the Driven Force Behind the Study of Semantic Flexibility: Conversational Contexts and Theoretical Contexts" (FII 2012-33881, Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness) and "Models and Theories in Physical, Biological and Social Sciences" (PICT-2014-1741, ANPCyT, Argentina).

References

  1. Balzer, W., Moulines, C. U., & Sneed, J. D. (1987). An architectonic for science: The structuralist program. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrell, J. (1914). The strength of the Earth’s crust. Journal of Geology, 22(4), 289–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, I. B. (1985/2001). “Continental Drift and Plate Tectonics: A Revolution in the Earth Science”, Revolution in Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, ch. 29: 446–466.Google Scholar
  4. Daly, R. A. (1940). Strength and Structure of the Earth. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Falguera, J. L., & Donato Rodríguez, X. (2015). Incommensurability, Comparability, and Non-reductive Ontological Relations. Journal for the General Philosophy of Science,. doi: 10.1007/s10838-014-9275-3.Google Scholar
  6. Feyerabend, P. K. (1962/1981). “Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism”, Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method. Philosophical Papers, vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Frankel, H. (1979). The career of continental drift theory: An application of imre lakatos’ analysis of scientific growth to the rise of drift theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 10(1), 21–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frisch, W., Meschede, M., & Blakey, R. (2011). Plate tectonics: Continental drift and mountain building. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gould, S. J. (1977). “The Validation of Continental Drift”, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History. New York: Norton, chapter 5, section 20: 160–167.Google Scholar
  10. Kuhn, T. S. (1962/1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kuhn, T. S. (1969/1970). “Postscript-1969”, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press: 182–191.Google Scholar
  12. Kuhn, T. S. (1983). Commensurability, comparability, communicability. Philosophy of Science Association, II, 669–688.Google Scholar
  13. Laudan, R. (1978). “The recent revolution in geology and kuhn’s theory of scientific change”, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, vol. 2, Symposia and Invited Papers: 227–239.Google Scholar
  14. Marvin, U. B. (2001). Reflections on the American rejection of continental drift. Metascience, 10, 208–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moulines, C. U. (1996). “Zur Typologie wissenschaftlicher Entwicklung nach strukturalistischer Deutung”. (In Hubig, C. & H. Poser (eds.), Cognitio HumanaDynamik des Wissens und der Werte, XVII, Leipzig: Institut für Philosophie der Universität Leipzig, 397–410.Google Scholar
  16. Moulines, C. U. (2002). Introduction: Structuralism as a program for modelling theoretical science. Synthese, 130, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moulines, C. U. (2010). “The crystallization of Clausius’s phenomenological thermodynamics”. (In Andreas Hüttemann & Gerhard Ernst (eds.), Time, Chance, and Reduction: Philosophical Aspects of Statistical Mechanics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 139–158.Google Scholar
  18. Moulines, C. U. (2011). Cuatro tipos de desarrollo teórico en las ciencias empíricas. Metatheoria, 1(2), 11–27.Google Scholar
  19. Moulines, C. U. (2014). Intertheoretical relations and the dynamics of science. Erkenntnis, 79(Supplement 8), 1505–1519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oreskes, N. (2003). “From Continental Drift to Plate Tectonics”. (In Naomi Oreskes & Homer Le Grand (eds.) Plate Tectonics: An Insiders’ History of the Modern Theory of the Earth, Boulder: Westview Press, chapter 1: 3–27.Google Scholar
  21. Ruse, M. (1981/1989). “What Kind of Revolution Occurred in Geology”, The Darwinian Paradigm, Essays on Its History, Philosophy and Religious Implications. London, Routledge, ch. 3: 55–89.Google Scholar
  22. Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Van Fraassen, B. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of ValladolidValladolidSpain

Personalised recommendations