Philosophers adrift? Comments on the alleged disunity of method

Philosophy of Science 60 (3):500-512 (1993)
R. Laudan and L. Laudan (1989) have put forth a new model intended to solve the problem of disagreement, the problem of consensus, and the problem of innovation in science. In support of this model they cite the history of the acceptance of continental drift, or plate tectonics. In this discussion, I claim that this episode does not constitute an instance of their model. The historical evidence does not support this model. Indeed, closer examination seems to weaken it. I also sketch an alternative model
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1086/289750
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 24,463
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
N. Oreskes, Fleming &unknown & R. J. (2000). Why Geophysics? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 31 (3):253-257.
Naomi Oreskes & James R. Fleming (2000). Why Geophysics? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 31 (3):253-257.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

12 ( #355,468 of 1,925,534 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #418,152 of 1,925,534 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.