Chamberlin's Argument Analysis

Chamberlin’s arguments were typically not against the entire idea that Wegener formulated but primarily the fact that it was weak. He believed that his theory was untenable in a sense that it couldn’t be defended from attack or objections. His thesis is claiming that his theory is too general in a sense that it may be describing what’s happening but does nothing more than that considering he doesn’t postulate any ideas as to why that may be happening. Furthermore, he sees his argument as possibly solving many of the questions that arose from the previous paradigm that was already deteriorating but instead brings about more questions around in regard to mountain formation and the overall movement of land masses. He then makes an attempt to answer

As a whole, he seems to entertain the idea of continental shift and was very open to the idea of sial and sima, stating that they were helpful terms. Longwell, in particular, targeted a few elements in regard to sial and sima (specifically the density and strength of sial and sima), how the continents moved, and how the continents actually match up in terms of the rocks chemical properties and generally their ability to act like jigsaw puzzles. To hinder the claims made by Wegener, he uses an abundance of studies of cumulative science to strengthen his own

Longwell produces a claim based on previous knowledge to make the claim that the continents drifted apart due to the forces acted upon them by tidal waves from the east to west. He uses the work done by Michelson and Gale to suggest the small amount of force to be enough to over time move the continents great distances. Wegener hypothesizes that the continents are being propelled forward to which Longwell responds declaring that in order for us to believe this, we must assume that sima is devoid of strength/resistance. Instead, he uses Joly’s ideas to suggest that the displacement may be caused by the movement of the exterior crust over the