Advanced search
1 file | 586.14 KB Add to list

In defence of rationalist accounts of the continental drift debate : a response to Pellegrini

Author
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
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 586.14 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

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: