We are taught that modern scientists are driven only by reason and facts. It was only early scientists like Galileo who needed to fear the reaction to their radical views. Neither of these beliefs is true. The reaction to Alfred Wegener's Continental Drift Theory demonstrates that new ideas threaten the establishment, regardless of the century.
Alfred Wegener was the scientist who proposed the
Continental Drift Theory in the early twentieth century. Simply put,
his hypothesis proposed that the continents had once been joined, and
over time had drifted apart. The jigsaw fit that the continents
make with each other can be seen by looking at any world map.
below shows the continents of Africa and South America
Clicking on the image will illustrate their drift to their current positions (thanks are due NASA for the original
Since his ideas challenged scientists in geology, geophysics, zoogeography and paleontology, it demonstrates the reactions of different communities of scientists. These reactions eventually shut down serious discussion of the concept. The geologist Barry Willis summed it up best:
further discussion of it merely incumbers the literature and befogs the mind of fellow students.The students' minds would not be befogged. Discussion stopped except for a few holdouts. The world had to wait until the 1960's for a wide discussion of the Continental Drift Theory to be restarted.
Why did Alfred Wegener's work produce such a reaction? He was diplomatic in presenting his theory. Although he believed some of his arguments were compelling, he knew he would need more support to convince others. His immediate goal was to have the concept openly discussed. Wegener did not even present Continental Drift as a proven theory. These modest goals did not spare him. His work crossed disciplines. The authorities in the various disciplines attacked him as an amateur that did not fully grasp their own subject. More importantly however, was that even the possibility of Continental Drift was a huge threat to the established authorities in each of the disciplines.
Radical new viewpoints are a threat to established authorities in a discipline. They are experts because of their knowledge of the current view of their discipline. A radical new view might force the experts to learn their field all over again. One of Alfred Wegener's critics, the geologist R. Thomas Chamberlain, suggested just that :
"If we are to believe in Wegener's hypothesis we must forget everything which has been learned in the past 70 years and start all over again."
He was right.
In spite of all the criticism, Wegener was able to keep Continental Drift part of the discussion until his death. He knew that any argument based simply on the jigsaw fit of the continents could easily be explained away as a coincidence. To strengthen his case he drew from the fields of geology, geography, biology and paleontology. Wegener questioned why coal deposits, commonly associated with tropical climates, would be found near the North Pole and why the plains of Africa would show evidence of glaciation. Wegener also presented examples where fossils of exactly the same prehistoric species were distributed where you would expect them to be if there had been Continental Drift (e.g. one species occurred in western Africa and South America, and another in Antartica, India and central Africa) [_1_] . The graphic below shows the striking distribution of fossils on the different continents.
Wegener used an Alexander duToit graphic to demonstrate the uncanny match of geology between eastern South America and western Africa.
The picture painted of Alfred Wegener's contemporaries might not be fair. One would expect scientists to resist ideas that would discredit their life's work. But it doesn't explain all of the criticism. There were alternatives. To explain the unusual distribution of fossils in the Southern Hemisphere some scientists proposed there may once have been a network of land bridges between the different continents. To explain the existence of fossils of temperate species being found in arctic regions, the existence of warm water currents was proposed. Modern scientists would look at these explanations as even less credible than those proposed by Wegener, but they did help to preserve the steady state theory.
New theories often have rough edges. Wegener did not have an explanation for how continental drift could have occurred. He proposed two different mechanisms for this drift. One was based on the centrifugal force caused by the rotation of the earth and another a 'tidal argument' based on the tidal attraction of the sun and the moon. These explanations could easily be proven inadequate. They opened Wegener to ridicule because they were orders of magnitude too weak. Wegener really did not believe that he had the explanation for the mechanism, but that this should not stop discussion of a hypothesis. Wegener's contemporaries disagreed. A major conference was held by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 1926 that was critical of the theory. Alfred Wegener died a few years later. With his death, the Continental Drift Theory was quietly swept under the rug. The existing theories of continent formation were allowed to survive, with little challenge until the 1960's.
The main problem with Wegener's hypothesis of Continental Drift was the lack of a mechanism. He did not have an explanation for how the continents moved. Did this justify the strong reactions to his work? Charles Darwin was missing a mechanism for the inheritance of beneficial traits when he published the Origin of Species in 1859. Darwin had amassed a huge amount of evidence that supported some type of adaptive process that contributed to the evolution of new species. He argued that with the natural variations that occur in populations, any trait that is beneficial would make that individual more likely to survive and pass on the trait to the next generation. If enough of these selections occured on different beneficial traits you could end up with completely new species. But he did not have a mechanism for how the traits could be preserved over the succeeding generations. The dominant theory of inheritance at the time was that the traits of the parents were blended in the offspring. But this would mean that any beneficial trait would be diluted out of the population within a few generations. This is because most of the blending over the next generations would be with individuals that did not have the trait.
The lack of a mechanism to preserve traits didn't seem a problem. Within 5 years, Oxford University was using a biology textbook that discussed biology in the context of evolution by natural selection. The textbook stated, "Though evidence might be required to show that natural selection accounts for everything ascribed to it, yet no evidence is required to show that natural selection has always been going on, is going on now, and must ever continue to go on. Recognizing this is an a priori certainty, let us contemplate it under its two distinct aspects." At Oxford, evolution by natural selection had gone from hypothesis to a priori certainty in the space of 5 years. The scientific community (excepting a minority of skeptics) chose to ignore the lack of mechanism. Wegener had no such luck with his own theory. [_2_] .
The mechanism that explained the preservation of beneficial traits was published shortly after the Origin of Species. Unfortunately it was ignored. In 1865, an obscure Augustinian monk from Moldavia presented a paper to the Natural History Society of Brunn where he discussed the results of experiments on pea plants. The results presented by this monk, Gregor Mendel, pointed to traits being inherited 'whole' (also known as particulate inheritance), and that certain traits (recessive traits) that disappear in one generation can reappear in a following generation (see Mendel and Evolution). This would have gone a long way in plugging at least one hole in the Darwin's theory. Mendel's work was largely ignored until about 1900. Shortly afterward it was incorporated into our modern view of evolution known as the 'modern synthesis'.
Darwins theory had another problem. His theory proposed a gradual evolution through successive generations. But the fossil record at the time didn't co-operate. There seemed to be a 'explosion' of different life-forms over a relatively short time span (in geologic terms) in the early Cambrian period. There also didn't seem to be any transitional forms of life preceding these species. This eventually became known as the Cambrian Explosion. Darwin himself recognized this as a serious issue with his theory and he discussed it in the Origin of Species. Darwin explained away the problem as a problem with the fossil record and not with his theory. Over the course of the twentieth century, a much better picture of the fossil record of both the Cambrian and Pre-Cambrian eras was developed. The new discoveries made the problem worse. Much worse. In the early twentieth century, the American paleontologist, Charles Walcott, discovered and excavated the Burgess Shale in British Columbia, Canada. He found 65,000 more specimens of early Cambrian life, many of which were complex multi-celled animals. At the time there still was no evidence of transitional forms in the pre-Cambrian. Only recently have they started discovering isolated examples of moderately complex multi-celled animals from the Pre-Cambrian. This still doesn't explain the step-change in the diversity of life-forms in the Cambrian.
Wegener also shares much in common with Galileo. Wegener probably had at least as strong a case for Continental Drift in 1929 as Galileo had for the Copernican model in 1633. Galileo's problems over the Copernican Model are usually presented as a conflict with the Church, and not a conflict with other scientists (see Galileo's Battle for the Heavens). As a result most discussions of the early Copernican Model do not even mention any problems associated with the Copernican model. It was a scientific controversy and it had many of the same elements of the Continental Drift controversy.
Galileo had his own 'tidal argument' ; one that was even more embarassing than Wegener's. Galileo argued that the tides were caused by the sun. How could a great scientist who had spent his youth less than 20 kilometres from the sea be so wrong about tides! He presented an argument for Copernicism based on there only being 1 tide per day and where the tides cycle over the year and not over a month. While it took a noted geologist to show that Wegener's tidal argument was ridiculous, Galileo's tidal argument could be proven wrong by anyone living near the sea.
The tidal argument wasn't the only problem with Galileo's defense of Copernicism. Wegener's critics never presented strong arguments that Continental Drift couldn't have happened. They did show that the mechanism that Wegener suggested was driving Continental Drift was inadequate. The scientists of Galileo's day did have scientifically valid reasons to doubt a moving earth. A moving earth required that a phenomenon known as stellar parallax (see Copernicism and Stellar Parallax) would be observed . No one in Galileo's day or for two centuries after his death was able to observe this phenomenon.
Another argument against Copernicism was very simple; the data didn't support it! In 1551, only 8 years after Copernicus's death, the Prutenic tables were developed from the Copernican model to predict the positions of stars and planets. There was 80 years of experience in comparing the performance of Copernican-based tables (Prutenic) and Ptolemaic-based tables (Alphonsine). It didn't seem that one was much better than the other. A reasonable conclusion based on this experience is that if the Ptolemaic was wrong, then the Copernican was not right. Today we know these scientists were right to doubt the performance of the Copernican model. Modern statistical analyses shows little difference in performance between the two models [_3_] . It is the Keplerian system of planetary motion that is taught in schools, not the Copernican or the Ptolemaic. Galileo knew of Kepler's model and had never accepted it during his lifetime.
Why was one theory above was quickly accepted, another quickly dismissed, and the other the cause of dissension amongst scientists. Analysis from a strictly scientific basis won't help. All of the theories had strengths and weaknesses. We might have to look beyond the world of ideas to the world of people, events and things.
Darwin, was the ultimate insider in English scientific circles. His grandfather, Erasmus, was an early student of evolution and his half-cousin, Francis Galton, was a noted statistician who was considered the father of eugenics. Being part of the Wedgewood-Darwin clan meant having no worries about money and established connections in the scientific world. When evolution by natural selection was under attack, Darwin could enlist the efforts of a Who's Who of mid-nineteenth century English science. The most famous of the early defenses of Darwinism was not by Darwin himself but by the famous biologist, Thomas Huxley and the social philosopher, Herbert Spencer. Darwin's ideas were adopted by supporters of laissez-faire capitalism. "Survival of the fittest" gave an ethical dimension to the no-holds barred capitalism of the late nineteenth century. Andrew Carnegie, the fabulously rich robber baron, used elements of evolution by natural selection to justify his own ruthless business practices.
Alfred Wegener wasn't an insider. He had to earn all his allies. His few allies (duToit and Holmes) were no match for his skeptics. Some of this early skepticism may even have been due to anti-German bias. Anti-German bias was very strong in the 1910's and 1920's. In English-speaking countries such as Australia, Canada, the UK, and the USA it reached the stage where German-based names for cities, streets, foods and animal breeds were often being renamed to names that were more 'patriotic'. Being German wasn't Wegener's only problem; the arguments he used to support his hypothesis crossed into disciplines that were not his specialty. He was trained as an astronomer and worked as a meterologist. He was considered an outsider for a reason.
The early history of the Copernican model provides examples where the same outside force influenced both the acceptance and rejection of a hypothesis. When Copernicus' book de Revolutionibus was first published it drew very little criticism from the Catholic countries. The most serious early criticisms came from the Protestant countries in Europe. This situation was reversed in the seventeenth century. The easy ride that was given de Revolutionibus in Catholic countries may have been influenced by the knowledge of the Vatican's involvement in the publication of the book. In 1533, a series of lectures on Copernicus's work was given to Pope Clement VII and senior Vatican officials by an Albert Widmannstetter. After the lectures, the Vatican tried to coerce Copernicus into sharing his work, since it had not yet been published. It was not only the Vatican that was involved here. The local bishop, one of Copernicus' closest friends, tried repeatedly to get Copernicus to release his work for publication. Eventually the coercion worked, with the help of the Austrian professor, Rheticus. With the publication of de Revolutionibus, little doubt was left about the church's involvement. The original publication included a copy of the letter from the Vatican urging him to share his work, a dedication to the pope, and a heart-felt thank you from Copernicus to the local bishop, Bishop Giese. The involvement of the church in the original publication of Copernicus' work may have muted criticism from academics in the Catholic countries of Europe and perhaps encouraged criticism in the Protestant countries. The reverse happened after Galileo's trial in 1633. Galileo was tried for not obeying an order from 1616 to not teach the Copernican theory as true but only as a hypothesis. He was placed under house arrest in his villa in the Tuscan hills just outside Florence (see Galileo's Battle for the Heavens).
Science depends on facts. It also depends on reason. But fact and reason alone cannot explain how science works. The examples chosen all had some compelling support and serious shortcomings. Part of the answer may lie in the sociology of groups. Another part lies in simple faith: faith that future scientists will address a theory's shortcomings. Darwin needed an explanation for the Cambrian Explosion and a mechanism for the preservation of traits (see Mendel and Darwin) . Wegener needed a mechanism for Continental Drift. Galileo needed an explanation for the lack of stellar parallax and the poor performance of his model (see Galileo's Battle for the Heavens) . It is not only the community that requires faith. The champions of these new theories require faith in their ideas, even when facts contradict their hypotheses. In each case above, there were facts which when combined with the current assumptions of the time clearly contradicted their hypotheses. None of these scientists let those facts get in the way. Paul Feyerabend, a modern philosopher of science, presents a similar view, where he argues that science is sometimes required to work "against the facts". His key example was how the heliocentric system made less sense than a geocentric system during Galileo's time. One irony missed by discussions of science and religion is how much both depend on faith.