Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem
dc.contributor.author
Pellegrini, Pablo Ariel
dc.date.available
2023-06-16T17:53:25Z
dc.date.issued
2022-12
dc.identifier.citation
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
dc.identifier.issn
0925-4560
dc.identifier.uri
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/200887
dc.description.abstract
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.
dc.format
application/pdf
dc.language.iso
eng
dc.publisher
Springer
dc.rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.uri
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/
dc.subject
CONTINENTAL DRIFT
dc.subject
RATIONALISM
dc.subject
RELATIVISM
dc.subject
SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY
dc.subject
SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE OF A THEORY
dc.subject
STYLES OF THOUGHT
dc.subject.classification
Filosofía, Historia y Filosofía de la Ciencia y la Tecnología
dc.subject.classification
Filosofía, Ética y Religión
dc.subject.classification
HUMANIDADES
dc.title
About the Reaction to Styles of Thought on the Continental Drift Debate
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type
info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.date.updated
2023-06-14T10:59:09Z
dc.identifier.eissn
1572-8587
dc.journal.volume
53
dc.journal.number
4
dc.journal.pagination
573-582
dc.journal.pais
Alemania
dc.description.fil
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
dc.journal.title
Journal for General Philosophy of Science
dc.relation.alternativeid
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10838-022-09617-2
dc.relation.alternativeid
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10838-022-09617-2
Archivos asociados