I agree that plate tectonics seems to have been definitely the dominant model in geology by then, but that doesn’t mean it was wrong at the time to point out that it was relatively new and still undergoing experimental verification. There was a study by Nitecki et al. as late as 1978 on which practicing geologists accepted plate tectonics and which didn’t, so I think it may be a bit of an exaggeration to say that there absolutely wasn’t any doubt about it.
Well, it’s easy in hindsight to diss more cautious recipients of a new theory as “old fogies who couldn’t adapt”, but I’m not sure it’s always valid. Especially when the adaptation timeframe in question is only a few years.
Well, someone asked the question as to why his professors weren’t teaching the new plate tectonic theory and the only thing we could come up with is that the Professors were quite old and had a hard time accepting newer ideas that were in the process of being “fleshed out”.
Agreed. It’s a common meme that the laws of motion have been proven wrong in the face of relativistic and quantum physics.
In reality they are used to make thousands of correct predictions every day.
All theories are simplifications at one level or another. The Newtonian model is cruder than some we have available, but they provide a useful simplification in many situations.
For all the talk of “Once scientists believed X, now we know different” there aren’t many substitutions for X, certainly not where the actual scientific method was employed. The whole nature of the scientific method; where one must make repeatable, accurate, surprising predictions basically precludes being outright wrong.
> All this for a joke? It was a play on words from the original OP!
> Wow! What a killjoy!
Geez, you’re desperate. You make an incorrect statement and try hopelessly to defend it. When someone finally shows you that it can’t possibly be true, you then claim that it was just a joke.