In defence of rationalist accounts of the continental drift debate : a response to Pellegrini
- Author
- Erik Weber (UGent) and Dunja Šešelja
- Organization
- 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.
- Keywords
- Philosophy, History and Philosophy of Science, Alfred Wegener, Continental drift, Empirical evidence, Rationalist accounts of science, Pablo Pellegrini
Downloads
-
(...).pdf
- full text (Published version)
- |
- UGent only
- |
- |
- 586.14 KB
Citation
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication: http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-8674831
- MLA
- Weber, Erik, and Dunja Šešelja. “In Defence of Rationalist Accounts of the Continental Drift Debate : A Response to Pellegrini.” JOURNAL FOR GENERAL PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, vol. 51, no. 3, 2020, pp. 481–90, doi:10.1007/s10838-020-09516-4.
- APA
- Weber, E., & Šešelja, D. (2020). In defence of rationalist accounts of the continental drift debate : a response to Pellegrini. JOURNAL FOR GENERAL PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 51(3), 481–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-020-09516-4
- Chicago author-date
- Weber, Erik, and Dunja Šešelja. 2020. “In Defence of Rationalist Accounts of the Continental Drift Debate : A Response to Pellegrini.” JOURNAL FOR GENERAL PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE 51 (3): 481–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-020-09516-4.
- Chicago author-date (all authors)
- Weber, Erik, and Dunja Šešelja. 2020. “In Defence of Rationalist Accounts of the Continental Drift Debate : A Response to Pellegrini.” JOURNAL FOR GENERAL PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE 51 (3): 481–490. doi:10.1007/s10838-020-09516-4.
- Vancouver
- 1.Weber E, Šešelja D. In defence of rationalist accounts of the continental drift debate : a response to Pellegrini. JOURNAL FOR GENERAL PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE. 2020;51(3):481–90.
- IEEE
- [1]E. Weber and D. Šešelja, “In defence of rationalist accounts of the continental drift debate : a response to Pellegrini,” JOURNAL FOR GENERAL PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 481–490, 2020.
@article{8674831,
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.}},
author = {{Weber, Erik and Šešelja, Dunja}},
issn = {{0925-4560}},
journal = {{JOURNAL FOR GENERAL PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE}},
keywords = {{Philosophy,History and Philosophy of Science,Alfred Wegener,Continental drift,Empirical evidence,Rationalist accounts of science,Pablo Pellegrini}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{3}},
pages = {{481--490}},
title = {{In defence of rationalist accounts of the continental drift debate : a response to Pellegrini}},
url = {{http://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-020-09516-4}},
volume = {{51}},
year = {{2020}},
}
- Altmetric
- View in Altmetric
- Web of Science
- Times cited: