Continental Drift Tectonic Plate Theory’s 100th anniversary. Alfred Wegener ridiculed for half a century

Continental Drift Theory’s 100’s anniversary on January 6, 2012. Pioneering scientist Alfred Wegener had presented it to the Geological Society in Frankfurt. He was ridiculed for half a century for his absurd idea that the continents float and drift. In 1945, Albert Einstein wrote a preface to a book criticizing Wegner’s theory.  [1]. In 1964, Encyclopedia Britannica stated that the continental drift theory had grave theoretical problems.

Continental-Drift-1The ruling theory posited that the earth shrunk and shriveled, like an old apple, causing mountains to form. Unlike Continental Drift theory It could not explain why mountains were unevenly distributed over the earth, nor why Norway had coal which originated in tropical climates, nor why there were similar fossils on both sides of the Atlantic. Instead, unproven theories of land bridges across continents tried to explain how the animals could have crossed the oceans. [1]

One would expect that in our modern ages,

unlike early scientists, modern scientists proposing radical new ideas do not need to fear the reactions of those entrenched in the existing system. Alfred Wegener is one modern scientist amongst many that demonstrate that new ideas threaten the establishment, regardless of the century.

Alfred Wegener was the scientist who championed the Continental Drift Theory through the first few decades of the 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."

Since his ideas challenged scientists in geology, geophysics, zoogeography and paleontology, it demonstrates the reactions of different communities of scientists. The reactions by the leading authorities in the different disciplines was so strong and so negative that serious discussion of the concept stopped. One noted scientist, the geologist Barry Willis, seemed to be speaking for the rest when he said:

                 "further discussion of it merely incumbers the literature and befogs the mind of fellow students.

Barry Willis’s and the other scientists wishes were fulfilled. Discussion did stop in the larger scientific community and students’ minds were not befogged. 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 much more diplomatic in presenting his theory than Galileo. Although he believed himself to be right and that 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. The fact that his work crossed disciplines exposed him to the territoriality of scientific disciplines. The authorities in the various disciplines attacked him as an interloper 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.

One can’t underestimate the effect of a radical new viewpoint on those established in a discipline. The authorities in these fields are authorities because of their knowledge of the current view of their discipline. A radical new view on their discipline could be a threat to their own authority. One of Alfred Wegener’s critics, the geologist R. Thomas Chamberlain, could not have summarized this threat any better :

"             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.       Wegener, Galileo and Darwin

Alfred-WegenerAlfred Wegener, Galileo Galiei, Charles Darwin

The main problem with Wegener’s hypothesis of Continental Drift was the lack of a mechanism. […] In spite of the lack of a mechanism for the preservation of traits, Darwin’s theory quickly came to dominate. Within 5 years, Oxford University was using a biology textbook that discussed biology in the context of evolution by natural selection. […]

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. The reason many do not realize this is that the controversy is usually presented as a controversy between Galileo and the Church and not Galileo and 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. But it was a scientific controversy and it had many of the same elements of the Continental Drift controversy. […]

From the descriptions above it would be difficult to explain why one of the theories was quickly accepted by the scientific communities, another was quickly dismissed even as a hypothesis, and the other was accepted by some and challenged by others. Interpreting these events from a strictly scientific basis won’t help. All of the theories had some compelling advantages and all had some very serious failings when they were first presented. We might have to look beyond the world of ideas to the world of people, events and things to help answer the question.

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.   Wegener, Galileo and Darwin


Remembering Alfred Wegener

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” This summary, usually attributed to German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, seem especially true of scientific knowledge. Take plate tectonics. The idea that surface of the earth is constantly changing as continents drift around on top of a layer of molten rock is so well established that it’s hard for most people to imagine otherwise. But exactly 100 years ago today, when a 31-year-old German meteorologist named Alfred Wegener presented this idea at a meeting of the Geological Association in Frankfurt, he was mocked. It would take decades and the work of many other scientists – including some prominent Canadians – to show that plate tectonics are as real as gravity and evolution.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Continental Drift Tectonic Plate Theory’s 100th anniversary. Alfred Wegener ridiculed for half a century” »
Continental Drift Tectonic Plate Theory’s 100th anniversary…. » continues here »


Sexual Desire for Pre-Pubescent Children. The worst of all crimes?

As child abuse experts point out, about 50 children are reported kidnapped and raped or murdered by strangers annually, compared to more than 3,000 children murdered by parents and other family members in non-sexual cases.

Most sex offenders, says one therapist who works with sex offenders in a state prison system, are “Gentle grandfathers who made one mistake in judgment years ago and fondled their grandchild.

At issue her is:

  • Legal punishment for sexual “crimes” against minors is a modern witch hunt.
  • Totally out of proportion to damage caused by it.
  • Hysteria
  • Purposeful confounding of criminal violent sexual crime against minors nearly or totally harmless fondling or consensual sexual acts
  • any reasonable open-minded unbiased discussion or scientific analysis of the issue regarding underage sexuality  is totally shunned, repressed, ignored, prohibited.
Wait, there is more! This article continues! More pre-pubescent sex apology »
Sexual Desire for Pre-Pubescent Children. The worst of all crimes? » continues here »


Germany bans Cola drink for 0.4 micrograms/l cocaine content

Another absurd example of drug policy going haywire. The sugar content and artificial coloring, and the empty calories are deadly menaces to public health. Very minute traces of cocaine are probably totally inefficient, maybe even beneficial according to old South American Indian tradition. Certainly the coffeine is more dangerous. It will be interesting if such traces will be found in other foodstuffs.

The illegal cocaine alkaloid – one of 10 found in coca and representing only 0.8% of the plant’s chemical make-up – is chemically removed before use, as mandated by international anti-narcotics agencies.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! More senseless prohibitions due to minute traces of Cocaine »
Germany bans Cola drink for 0.4 micrograms/l cocaine content » continues here »


“Child Abuse” Dogmatists Repress Scientific Research

The blog put up a very very nice listing of persecution of scientists, of repression of scientific research by dogmatic people. It is correctly called radical left. I would not sign off blindly on all their statements.

[Disclaimer: My main topic is “defense of free research”, “freedom to find the scientific true facts” without getting death threats. This is not a crusade for underage sex, it is rather about unbiased truth & freedom of research versus dogmatic preconceived ideas]

In the only instance of a U.S. Congressional resolution against a scientific paper, the House of Representatives, with only minimal opposition, denounced a study by Dr. Bruce Rind & others, published in the scholarly review, Psychological Bulletin, in 1998.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! More Child Abuse Dogmatists »
“Child Abuse” Dogmatists Repress Scientific Research » continues here »


Are there women paedophiles?

If  a man to believes that his sexual problems stem from being “abused” by an attractive female when he was fourteen,  this  normally would not pass as scientific evidence.  But on issues with dogmatic preconceived dogmas,  such faulty evidence can be presented in scientific conferences.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! More on »
Are there women paedophiles? » continues here »


Teenage Sexuality & Pedophilia

In the US, the laws on sexual repression/oppression are getting worse. I say this because I am a convicted sex offender.

It happened 10 years ago when at the age of 19 I had consensual sex with a girl aged 14.

At the time she told me that she was 18 (thus legal). The blame all fell on me however.

I was told that I should have known better and sentenced to two years in prison.

At that age, by US law, I was unable to make the decision to consume alcohol responsibly, yet I should have known that she wasn’t 18?

How shocking is that?

Blind dogmatism makes exaggerated laws that stigmatize innocent people. The modern witch hunt. Adolescents need legal counsel before engaging in any sexual behavior.