European geologists were generally receptive to the theory as early as the the 1920s, and by the 1940s it was the working assumption for most field work.
The only geologists to reject the theory aggressively were a group in North America who read a lower quality translation (of the original German book presenting the theory) which may not have been adequately checked for tone.
The author was perceived to be openly arrogant and dismissive of current work in the field. For this reason, his theory’s rate of acceptance among US geologists lagged behind.
I’m seeing a recurring theme
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.
It’s like the new enlightenment is just right now.
We are also going to look back at bioteck from now and be horrified in a not so distant future.
To oversimplify: there was not a demonstrable process that could explain the movement of huge sheets of solid rock, that’s where the reluctance came from. It wasn’t until the ocean floor mapping of the 60s that we understood the non-random nature earthquakes and the existence of mid-ocean ridges that lead the scientific community to accept “seafloor spreading” as the mechanism of Alfred Wegener’s proposed continental drift.
Still really random (to us), just a bit less now.
Wasn’t a substantial element mapping during WW2? That was when they discovered the patterns/changes in earth’s magnetic field over millenia.
Just pointing, but people had been speculating about tectonic plates for a really long time. A century before geologists finally allowed one of them to point it and accepted looking into it, fringe scientists already had an overwhelming amount of evidence.
Did they have a cigarette after thinking about it though?
Well now I am hella curious: What did they think caused earthquakes before the 60s? 🤔
Actually the post is wrong. Geologists had the general idea long before that. The detailed explanations were missing, but matching rock formations and borders and using common sense is quite old.
My grandfather went to school for geology in the 60’s (US), and told me that plate tectonics was taught to him as a new/tentative thing.
I wonder if some element could be related to being in the south - plate tectonics doesn’t really align with creationism that well, and too this day you can’t really safely teach human evolution. (Yesterday, I informed a high schooler that dinosaurs were real. He was pretty happy to learn this.)
Your moms bed.
Premarital sex
You kid but, at least in the US, we’re going to be perpetually a week away from returning to that time for the next 3 years and change - best case scenario.
Poseidon.
May I suggest a light read? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
I figure they first needed Inge Lehmann to figure out that there was an inner core, outer core, and mantle which she didn’t do until 1933, eight years after she started doing seismology. And it took three years before she published it which brings us to 1936. It was accepted fairly quickly but then came the war. And after the war seismology was really big on listening to nukes. Sixties makes sense.
Inge Lehmann - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inge_Lehmann
This scene was overheard in a 1950s pediatrician’s office, who then offered the soft-pack of filterless “toasted” smokes to the 8yr old and her mother.
Protect your child! Give them a Kent cigarette with a micronite filter.
Kent, the one cigarette that can show you proof of greater health protection.this fact brought to you by the delicious relaxing taste of Daisy Duke Cigarettes.
if you want a nuke, smoke a Daisy Duke!
“Take those lead paint chips out of your mouth! … wipes his face with some asbestos … now here mommy will show you how to make smoke rings … cough, cough, hack, hack, wheeeeeeeze”
Only if the kid was overweight, though
