About the Reaction to Styles of Thought on the Continental Drift Debate

Abstract The article appearing previously in this journal entitled “Styles of Thought on the Continental Drift Debate” (Pellegrini 2019) prompted a response from Weber and Šešelja (2020) which they termed as “a defence rationalist accounts”. They argue that their self-designated “sophisticated rationalism” explains closure continental-drift debate without being affected by my critiques to approaches. While ignoring empirical evidence shows complexity necessity include broader social elements analysis (such scientists denying continental drift even after plate tectonics theory, others supporting it familiarized with literature), proclaim be unconvinced about styles thought. In order clarify differences approach historical controversy, I respond here criticism paper drew while discussing place rationalism when explaining acceptance theory. will distinction between “crude” “sophisticated” does not solve problem aspects left aside rationalists view also understand what leads people embrace belief (namely accepting theory), mere cognitive or epistemic arguments is enough reductionist explanation behaviour.