Controversy in Plate tectonic theory. The philosophical point of view

The theory of plate tectonics, one of the most revolutionary in the field of Earth Sciences, had a troubled and controversial history before being widely accepted by the scientific community. Its development, between denial and acceptance, could be considered, from a philosophical point of view, a perfect example of the application of the “Kuhnian paradigm!”. Some geologists (Wilson, Cox, Marvin and Hallam), who actively participated in the research, analyzed the development of the Theory of Plate Tectonics using Kuhnian ideas as the basis of their interpretations. They were countered by Philosophers of science such as Frankel, Ruse, Kitts and Wood who pointed out interesting aspects that the mentioned geologists, due to their training, could not take into account. For example, sometimes theories are not accepted because the person proposing them is not an expert in the field (Wegner was better known for being a meteorologist than a geologist); or sometimes novelty prevails over scientific evidence (see for example the ideas of Lakatos and Laudan); or even that prejudices and biases cannot be totally eliminated in Science. Interesting in this regard are the analyses proposed by Stewart, LeGrand, Giere and Solomon. The analysis leads to understanding how specific and particular geological reasoning (a mixture of physics, chemistry and biology) can help to better understand some aspects of  Science.