Drifting or Colliding Interests? A Reply to Laudan with Some New Results

Abstract

7. Stewart did attempt to use data from the Bibliography and Index of Geology, Exclusive of North America, but, since it did not begin publication until 1934, its use was limited. 8. Stewart has assembled a list of ninety-five scientists, not all of them 'geoscientists' and not all of them American, who published one (or occasionally more) papers on drift in his chosen period. 9. Stewart argues that his interpretation rests on rejecting Bloor's 'symmetry' thesis that scientists' beliefs in true and false theories be explained in the same terms. I find myself unsympathetic both to the symmetry thesis and to Stewart's rationale for rejecting it. But teasing out the distinctions necessary to make this case would take me well beyond the aims of this Response, which are to point out some problems with Stewart's database and methodology. 10. Stewart, op. cit. note 1, 273. True, in this case Stewart does try to produce some independent evidence for his claim in the form of quotations from scientists attributing social interests to opponents of drift. But this does not serve to establish his case, for it can be countered with quotations supporting the view that the better-informed scientists rejected drift on epistemic grounds.