About the Reaction to Styles of Thought on the Continental Drift Debate
- Autores
- Pellegrini, Pablo Ariel
- Año de publicación
- 2022
- Idioma
- inglés
- Tipo de recurso
- artículo
- Estado
- versión publicada
- Descripción
- The article appearing previously in this journal entitled “Styles of Thought on the Continental Drift Debate” (Pellegrini 2019) prompted a response from Weber and Šešelja (2020) which they termed as “a defence of rationalist accounts”. They argue that their self-designated “sophisticated rationalism” explains the closure of the continental-drift debate without being affected by my critiques to rationalist approaches. While ignoring the empirical evidence that shows the complexity of the debate and the necessity to include broader social elements in the analysis (such as scientists denying continental drift even after the plate tectonics theory, others supporting it without being familiarized with the literature), they proclaim to be unconvinced about the analysis of the styles of thought. In order to clarify differences in the approach to the continental-drift historical controversy, I respond here to the criticism my paper drew while discussing the place of rationalism when explaining the acceptance of a theory. I will argue that their distinction between “crude” and “sophisticated” rationalism does not solve the problem of social aspects being left aside by rationalists in view of the acceptance of a theory. I will also argue that in order to understand what leads people to embrace a belief (namely scientists in accepting a theory), the analysis of mere cognitive or epistemic arguments is not enough and it leads to a reductionist explanation as to social behaviour.
Fil: Pellegrini, Pablo Ariel. Universidad Nacional de Quilmes. Departamento de Ciencias Sociales. Instituto de Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia y la Tecnología; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina - Materia
-
CONTINENTAL DRIFT
RATIONALISM
RELATIVISM
SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY
SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE OF A THEORY
STYLES OF THOUGHT - Nivel de accesibilidad
- acceso abierto
- Condiciones de uso
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/
- Repositorio
.jpg)
- Institución
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
- OAI Identificador
- oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/200887
Ver los metadatos del registro completo
| id |
CONICETDig_3a4b657380608e621ef18917cdec23bb |
|---|---|
| oai_identifier_str |
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/200887 |
| network_acronym_str |
CONICETDig |
| repository_id_str |
3498 |
| network_name_str |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
| spelling |
About the Reaction to Styles of Thought on the Continental Drift DebatePellegrini, Pablo ArielCONTINENTAL DRIFTRATIONALISMRELATIVISMSCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSYSOCIAL ACCEPTANCE OF A THEORYSTYLES OF THOUGHThttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/6.3https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6The article appearing previously in this journal entitled “Styles of Thought on the Continental Drift Debate” (Pellegrini 2019) prompted a response from Weber and Šešelja (2020) which they termed as “a defence of rationalist accounts”. They argue that their self-designated “sophisticated rationalism” explains the closure of the continental-drift debate without being affected by my critiques to rationalist approaches. While ignoring the empirical evidence that shows the complexity of the debate and the necessity to include broader social elements in the analysis (such as scientists denying continental drift even after the plate tectonics theory, others supporting it without being familiarized with the literature), they proclaim to be unconvinced about the analysis of the styles of thought. In order to clarify differences in the approach to the continental-drift historical controversy, I respond here to the criticism my paper drew while discussing the place of rationalism when explaining the acceptance of a theory. I will argue that their distinction between “crude” and “sophisticated” rationalism does not solve the problem of social aspects being left aside by rationalists in view of the acceptance of a theory. I will also argue that in order to understand what leads people to embrace a belief (namely scientists in accepting a theory), the analysis of mere cognitive or epistemic arguments is not enough and it leads to a reductionist explanation as to social behaviour.Fil: Pellegrini, Pablo Ariel. Universidad Nacional de Quilmes. Departamento de Ciencias Sociales. Instituto de Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia y la Tecnología; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaSpringer2022-12info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/200887Pellegrini, Pablo Ariel; About the Reaction to Styles of Thought on the Continental Drift Debate; Springer; Journal for General Philosophy of Science; 53; 4; 12-2022; 573-5820925-45601572-8587CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10838-022-09617-2info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1007/s10838-022-09617-2info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-10-22T11:53:16Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/200887instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-10-22 11:53:16.883CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse |
| dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
About the Reaction to Styles of Thought on the Continental Drift Debate |
| title |
About the Reaction to Styles of Thought on the Continental Drift Debate |
| spellingShingle |
About the Reaction to Styles of Thought on the Continental Drift Debate Pellegrini, Pablo Ariel CONTINENTAL DRIFT RATIONALISM RELATIVISM SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE OF A THEORY STYLES OF THOUGHT |
| title_short |
About the Reaction to Styles of Thought on the Continental Drift Debate |
| title_full |
About the Reaction to Styles of Thought on the Continental Drift Debate |
| title_fullStr |
About the Reaction to Styles of Thought on the Continental Drift Debate |
| title_full_unstemmed |
About the Reaction to Styles of Thought on the Continental Drift Debate |
| title_sort |
About the Reaction to Styles of Thought on the Continental Drift Debate |
| dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv |
Pellegrini, Pablo Ariel |
| author |
Pellegrini, Pablo Ariel |
| author_facet |
Pellegrini, Pablo Ariel |
| author_role |
author |
| dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv |
CONTINENTAL DRIFT RATIONALISM RELATIVISM SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE OF A THEORY STYLES OF THOUGHT |
| topic |
CONTINENTAL DRIFT RATIONALISM RELATIVISM SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE OF A THEORY STYLES OF THOUGHT |
| purl_subject.fl_str_mv |
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6.3 https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6 |
| dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv |
The article appearing previously in this journal entitled “Styles of Thought on the Continental Drift Debate” (Pellegrini 2019) prompted a response from Weber and Šešelja (2020) which they termed as “a defence of rationalist accounts”. They argue that their self-designated “sophisticated rationalism” explains the closure of the continental-drift debate without being affected by my critiques to rationalist approaches. While ignoring the empirical evidence that shows the complexity of the debate and the necessity to include broader social elements in the analysis (such as scientists denying continental drift even after the plate tectonics theory, others supporting it without being familiarized with the literature), they proclaim to be unconvinced about the analysis of the styles of thought. In order to clarify differences in the approach to the continental-drift historical controversy, I respond here to the criticism my paper drew while discussing the place of rationalism when explaining the acceptance of a theory. I will argue that their distinction between “crude” and “sophisticated” rationalism does not solve the problem of social aspects being left aside by rationalists in view of the acceptance of a theory. I will also argue that in order to understand what leads people to embrace a belief (namely scientists in accepting a theory), the analysis of mere cognitive or epistemic arguments is not enough and it leads to a reductionist explanation as to social behaviour. Fil: Pellegrini, Pablo Ariel. Universidad Nacional de Quilmes. Departamento de Ciencias Sociales. Instituto de Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia y la Tecnología; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina |
| description |
The article appearing previously in this journal entitled “Styles of Thought on the Continental Drift Debate” (Pellegrini 2019) prompted a response from Weber and Šešelja (2020) which they termed as “a defence of rationalist accounts”. They argue that their self-designated “sophisticated rationalism” explains the closure of the continental-drift debate without being affected by my critiques to rationalist approaches. While ignoring the empirical evidence that shows the complexity of the debate and the necessity to include broader social elements in the analysis (such as scientists denying continental drift even after the plate tectonics theory, others supporting it without being familiarized with the literature), they proclaim to be unconvinced about the analysis of the styles of thought. In order to clarify differences in the approach to the continental-drift historical controversy, I respond here to the criticism my paper drew while discussing the place of rationalism when explaining the acceptance of a theory. I will argue that their distinction between “crude” and “sophisticated” rationalism does not solve the problem of social aspects being left aside by rationalists in view of the acceptance of a theory. I will also argue that in order to understand what leads people to embrace a belief (namely scientists in accepting a theory), the analysis of mere cognitive or epistemic arguments is not enough and it leads to a reductionist explanation as to social behaviour. |
| publishDate |
2022 |
| dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2022-12 |
| dc.type.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo |
| format |
article |
| status_str |
publishedVersion |
| dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/200887 Pellegrini, Pablo Ariel; About the Reaction to Styles of Thought on the Continental Drift Debate; Springer; Journal for General Philosophy of Science; 53; 4; 12-2022; 573-582 0925-4560 1572-8587 CONICET Digital CONICET |
| url |
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/200887 |
| identifier_str_mv |
Pellegrini, Pablo Ariel; About the Reaction to Styles of Thought on the Continental Drift Debate; Springer; Journal for General Philosophy of Science; 53; 4; 12-2022; 573-582 0925-4560 1572-8587 CONICET Digital CONICET |
| dc.language.none.fl_str_mv |
eng |
| language |
eng |
| dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10838-022-09617-2 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1007/s10838-022-09617-2 |
| dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/ |
| eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
| rights_invalid_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/ |
| dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf application/pdf |
| dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Springer |
| publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Springer |
| dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET) instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
| reponame_str |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
| collection |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
| instname_str |
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar |
| _version_ |
1846782227790168064 |
| score |
12.982451 |