Abstract
A quantitative analysis of geoscientists' published opinions on continental drift theory between 1907 and 1950 indicates that the more prominent scientists resisted this revolutionary theory. Was this resistance based on the greater knowledge of these productive geoscientists, or were they protecting their reputations? The latter interpretation gains plausibility because the current acceptance of plate tectonics implies that the previous evidence given for drift should have established it as a plausible theory. The analyses and discussion in this paper illustrate (a) how quantitative evidence can be related to the `interests' perspective; (b) the importance of assumptions in distinguishing `social' and `scientific' interests; and (c) some of the elements in the `strong programme' in the sociology of scientific knowledge.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.