#Tectonic Plates
4 messages in this thread
Are there any definitive sources or texts on the theory of tectonic plates? I
heard a lecture recently that referred to the theory of tectonic plates and the
"fact" that it was only really accepted as a theory in the last 20 years (or
so). I would like to know more about the acceptance of this theory, how it
came about, and the process the theory went through in order to become
accepted.
Thanks.
–Dan
Probably your best bet would be "Continents in Motion," AIP Press, written by
former New York Times science editor Walter Sullivan. It was originally
published in the early 1970s. A second edition came out in 1991.
Hi, Dan–
Welcome to the forum!
For what it is worth, I have a book, "Continents Adrift", which is a collection
of old Scientific American article reprints; it dates to 1972 or so. While it
is more concerned with scientific details, a few glances, especially at the
introduction, shows it has some discussion of processes by which these theories
were rejected and then accepted. I doubt it is in print anymore, but libraries
and used bookstores might have it, or at least the magazine issues with those
articles in them: Oct 52, Nov 55, Sep 55, Jul 62, Apr 63, Apr 68, Dec 68, Sep
69, Oct 70, Mar 69, Mar 72, Feb 70, Nov 71.
Happy hunting! –Doug
Alexandra is right: Continents in Motion is the classic. I remember how
impressed my father (a high school science teacher and scientist's scientist)
was, when he read the book in the early-1970's. I was in high school and in
that sense grew up with tectonics; it's hard to remember that the theory (I
guess it's still a "theory", although the motion has been confirmed and
measured) was NOT always accepted and the first person to suggest it was
rejected and died before his idea was widely believed.
I don't know how it came to be accepted: my dad was apparently 'sold' from
first reading of C.i.M. The argument is pretty persuasive if you buy other
geologic principles. (I realize not *everybody* does…)
A recent book on the history of geology might be of value, to explore how the
idea was accepted. Maybe one of Stephen Jay Gould's. (For further information
or thoughts on how scientific paradigms, in general, change, I recommend Thomas
Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions… but it's not light reading.)
Good luck — E.