this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
1006 points (98.6% liked)
memes
14864 readers
5831 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
1960s was when the hypothesis of continental drift was empirically confirmed (leading to modern plate tectonics) but it was part of a prominent family of hypotheses (contending with isostatic models) more than a century prior.
The most complete of these models was offered by Wegener (paper in 1912, book in 1920). European geologists were generally receptive to it in the 1920s, and by the 1940s it was the working assumption for most field work. The only geologists to outright reject the idea initially were part of a North American contingent.
As to why Americans in particular, there were a few reasons, but a big one is that they didn’t read German and the first English edition of Wegener’s book was a draft-quality translation with issues relating to clarity and “tone.” The author was perceived to be dismissive of current work in the field (he was merely unaware of similar models offered previously) culminating in a summit seminar where a talk was given challenging the hypothesis and criticizing the methodology.
Interestingly, Wegener attended this talk, yet chose to remain silent. He never confirmed why. I would guess language barrier and shyness but I don’t know. Regardless, the matter was considered closed by those in attendance and his model’s acceptance by North American geologists lagged behind.
As a result, geology in American primary education saw the most dramatic curricular shift in the 1970s and 1980s. I suspect that’s why older Americans have this impression of a sudden change in scientific consensus. The true story is more interesting IMO.
I'm seeing a recurring theme
Please don’t conflate American scientists and American politicians. There is absolutely zero intersection between those two groups, and if you don’t think American scientists are on the forefront of nearly every field of research I don’t know what to tell you…
Even if we were, I think we must concede that we’re in the bargain bin now, or soon will be. 750M of current research grants at my school alone, likely more to come, and certainly fewer if any new grants outside whatever pet projects the regime fancies. Best of luck, wherever you land.
You’re conflating modern sciences with historic geology, and tossing in a dash of denialism to boot. There’s a well known adage called Planck’s principle (IIRC) which basically says that science advances one funeral at a time:
Also, science was very much a good ol’ boys club of people that often came from wealthy backgrounds because they could afford the education to become scientists, so they were very much big egos trying to keep their theories and discoveries attached to their names even in the face of more correct or contradicting information.
Nowadays the egos may not be quite as large, though there definitely plenty that resist change due to ego or other personal interest, but absolutely politics influences science in multiple ways. It determines who gets funding, what commercial interests pay and benefit from the discoveries, and what gets presented to the public.
Sure would be nice if all scientific results were unbiased, accessible, and free, but unfortunately that’s not always the case.
I lack the knowledge to add anything important to that topic but I wanna say, it seems ridiculous for this to be true. Not believing a scientific theory due to tone.
Agreed. It’s an instructive anecdote re: the importance of presentational clarity but also of charitable interpretation.