Acceptance of plate tectonic theory by geologists

Nitecki, Matthew H.; Lemke, Jay L.; Pullman, Howard W.; Johnson, Markes E.

doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1978)6<661:aopttb>2.0.co;2

Cited by 18 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the question of whether young scientists are more productive than older scientists see [LEHMAN, 1953;DENNIS, 1956;GARVEY & TOMITA, 1972;STERN, 1978;OVER, 1982;SIMONTON, 1997;HORNER & AL., 1986;KANAZAWA, 2003]. And, on the question whether young scientists are more apt than older scientists to accept a new theory, see [HULL & AL., 1978;MCCANN, 1978;NITECKI & AL., 1978;DIAMOND, 1980;STEWART, 1986;MESSERI, 1988;RAPPA & DEBACKERE, 1993]. I attributed the persistence of the myth that science is a young person's game to the fact that people often fail to account for the fact that through much of the history of science, young people have constituted a disproportionately large portion of working scientists.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Did professionalization afford better opportunities for young scientists?

Wray

2009

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Did professionalization afford better opportunities for young scientists?

Wray

2009

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…With this regard, it is considered as unstable thermodynamic system which is staging to disintegrate the Earth's crust and mantle thermal. Further, Nitecki et al [23] reported that plates are dim in expansion and penetrable to liquefy from the original, hardly dense asthenosphere. The absolute dynamic influences ahead of plate movements are the vertical cooling fluctuations and gravity force.…”

Section: Mechanism Of Earthquake Based On Plate Tectonic Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Three-Dimensional Nepal Earthquake Displacement Using Hybrid Genetic Algorithm Phase Unwrapping from Sentinel-1A Satellite

Marghany¹,

Mansor²

2017

Earthquakes - Tectonics, Hazard and Risk Mitigation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Geophysicists had forewarned for decades that Nepal was exposed to a deadly earthquake, exceptionally despite its geology, urbanization and architecture. Gorkha earthquake is the most horrible natural disaster to crash into Nepal since the 1934 Nepal-Bihar earthquake. Gorkha earthquake occurred on April 25, 2015, at 11:56 NST and killed more than 10,000 people and injured more than 23,000 population. Objective: The main objective of this work is to utilize hybrid genetic algorithm for three-dimensional phase unwrapping of Nepal earthquake displacement using Sentinel-1A satellite. The three-dimensional best-path avoiding singularity loops (3DBPASL) algorithm was implemented to perform 3D Sentinel-1A satellite phase unwrapping. The hybrid genetic algorithm (HGA) was used to achieve 3DBPASL phase matching. Advancely, the errors in phase decorrelation were reduced by optimization of 3DBPASL using HGA. Results: The findings indicate a few cm of ground deformation and vertical northern of Kathmandu. Approximately, an area of 12,000 km 2 has been drifted also the northern of Kathmandu. Further, each fringe of colour represents about 2.5 cm of deformation. The large amount of fringes indicates a large deformation pattern with ground motions of 3 m. Conclusion: In conclusion, HGA can be used to produce accurate 3D quake deformation using Sentinel-1A satellite.

show abstract

“…For instance, although the revolutionary theory of plate tectonic was only developed in the mid-1960s, it gained such rapid acceptance that by the early 1970s it had made its way into textbooks (Oreskes 1988). By the end of the 1970s, close to 90 % of geologists-at least in the American sample of Nitecki et al (1978)thought the theory established.…”

Section: Evaluating Other People's Reasonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientists’ Argumentative Reasoning

Mercier

Heintz²

2013

Topoi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reasoning, defined as the production and evaluation of reasons, is a central process in science. The dominant view of reasoning, both in the psychology of reasoning and in the psychology of science, is of a mechanism with an asocial function: bettering the beliefs of the lone reasoner. Many observations, however, are difficult to reconcile with this view of reasoning; in particular, reasoning systematically searches for reasons that support the reasoner's initial beliefs, and it only evaluates these reasons cursorily. By contrast, reasoners are well able to evaluate others' reasons: accepting strong arguments and rejecting weak ones. The argumentative theory of reasoning accounts for these traits of reasoning by postulating that the evolved function of reasoning is to argue: to find arguments to convince others and to change one's mind when confronted with good arguments. Scientific reasoning, however, is often described as being at odds with such an argumentative mechanisms: scientists are supposed to reason objectively on their own, and to be pigheaded when their theories are challenged, even by good arguments. In this article, we review evidence showing that scientists, when reasoning, are subject to the same biases as are lay people while being able to change their mind when confronted with good arguments. We conclude that the argumentative theory of reasoning explains well key features of scientists' reasoning and that differences in the way scientists and laypeople reason result from the institutional framework of science.

show abstract

Acceptance of plate tectonic theory by geologists

Cited by 18 publications

References 0 publications

Did professionalization afford better opportunities for young scientists?

Did professionalization afford better opportunities for young scientists?

Three-Dimensional Nepal Earthquake Displacement Using Hybrid Genetic Algorithm Phase Unwrapping from Sentinel-1A Satellite

Scientists’ Argumentative Reasoning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About