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
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/200887

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