what were alfred wegners oppenents main counter-arguments?
82845
Wegener's main opponent was an astronomer and geophysicist named Harold Jeffreys. Sir Jeffreys argued correctly that there was no way for a continent to plow through the ocean floor without breaking it and leaving some evidence of that process behind. Jeffreys continued his opposition to plate tectonics as well, maintaining skepticism about the possibility of convection currents. He passed away in 1989.\n\nAnother reason that Wegener was opposed is that he was not a geologist, but was a meteorologist. He was outside of the bounds of his field and at that time is was not customary or accepted to step into other scientific realms. \n\nAt the time there was a school of thought that believed the earth was cooling and contracting, and that oceanic basins were simply sunken continents. This made it easy to discount Wegener's fossil evidence because the animals could have simply crossed over land at one time, according to this idea. The cooling and contracting seemed to account for mountain ranges as well, although one of the flaws of this was that it was already known that mountains varied considerably in age.  \n\nIn 1908 another scientist Frank Taylor presented a paper to the Geological Society of America that suggested that continents were moving away from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, and suggested the ridge was stationary. His ideas were generally ignored or opposed, and only 18 months later Wegener proposed a very similar hypothesis.  \n\n\nMax Planck, (who was not involved in the debate over continental drift as far as I know) said this about the way scientific paradigms change:\n\n"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents [...] What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarised with the idea from the beginning."
813186
a counterbalancing force or system of forces.
231277
Primary difficulties for both sides was that infantry tactics had not advanced enough to keep pace with technology, resulting in trench warfare.  While the first part of the German's advance on the Western Front was quite mobile, the size of the German units participating in the Schliefen plan as altered by the general staff, could not use existing infrastructure to move quickly enough to meet the time hacks.  \n\nHowever, the sheer mass of German units, coupled with new technology as manifested in artillery and machine gun improvements allowed initial signficant gains.  After the front more or less stabilized, each side had to dig in to survive the devastating effects of artillery and direct fire weapons brought to bear.  Lacking the tactics to combat this, the allies could not push the Germans back for any sustainable distance.  Casualties associated with any attack were attrocious, not only from bullets and artillery, but also from sickness (many diseases had no vaccination in these days of the largest armies the world has ever seen).\n\nOne of the most significant difficulties the British/French alliance faced was logistic.  While the Germans could supply directly from the homeland, U-boats made transport to the lines in Europe difficult from overseas.  Although the Briish had tremendous sources of supply abroad, the wolf packs made it difficult and perilous to get supplies through.
473160
I don't think it was inevitable. Versialles always gets blamed-- but they couldv'e renegotiated it. Hitler had a lot to do with it-- maybe it was inevitable that the treaty terms made Germans angry, but that doesn't mean they'd definitely go to war over it.
551099
I'm not sure I understand your question.  I certainly think that the meaning of counterfactuals can be unraveled in a systematic way.
826379
Don't like Chomsky...........\n\nInteresting idea........
1047565
taking an opposing viewpoint in an argument, not necessarily because you believe it, but to help the other individual work out their arguments in favour of their position
377556
(snip)"Einstein also became known for his support of political and social causes. Those included pacifism, a general opposition to warfare; Zionism, a movement to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine; and socialism, a political system in which the means of production would be owned by society and production would be planned to match the needs of the community." (end snip)\n\nGood question.  I was not aware of his political standing and your question provoked me to look it up.  I have learned something today.  I hope this answer has helped you too. :-)
132926
Economics my friend.\n\nNo one is against no one here, but those of us who need the masses need to have a way of controlling them too.\n\nInfluence, makes you achieve results. Influence thoughts, outcomes, results and whatever you can.\n\nA lot of people are asking very risky questions, the interpertations may differ -but the questions will be answered one way or the other.\n\nAn irrational reaction is always the result of a dirth in personality. A gap within themselves that they like to fill up by creating a drama act around the facts.\n\nWHy do you think anybody would hate anyone, does anyone alive today had any say about our place, family, country, race, color or creed of birth? No. Nature had intended this and who can fight nature. We can only twist and turn but never undo whatever has been done.
518435
Have you been to www.icr.org ? They have a lot of facts that hard to ignore. If you can disprove them, I would be interested in seeing your rebuttal.
193578
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation."\n     --HERBERT SPENCER
496246
A little history lesson. Just prior to the start of WWII\na prime minister of Britain named Neville Chamberlain went\nto Germany to discuss friendship and peace with Hitler.\nHitler sucked him in and they all signed peace papers.\nChamberlain came back all smiles, waving his paper and\nexclaiming , "Peace in our time". Less than a year later\nHitler invaded Poland commencing WWII, making a fool of Chamberlain who resigned as prime minister shortly after.\n  The act of backing off from a threatening tyrant,\nthinking that he will be satisfied and stop his agressive\nmoves has come to be known as "appeasement" in international\npolitics. The world learned the hard way that appeasement\nonly encourages the appetite of the agressor. That the\nthreat of counter force is the only thing that will stop\nhim.  The US used the threat of counter force successfully\nagainst the belligerence of the Soviet Union during the\nBerlin Crisis, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Middle East\nCrisis. We also used it against Saddam the first time\nand probably stopped him from taking Saudi Arabia. \n  What Iran is playing now is called brinkmanship. You\ngo to the brink of war in a game of chicken, hoping the\nother side backs down. If they do, you win without\nfiring a shot. \n  Friendship with a Radical Fundamentalist Muslim\ngovernment is impossible. That isn't just name calling.\nThat's what they are self defined as. Their international\nvalues and needs are contrary to ours. Their enemies are\nour friends(i.e., Israel) and their friends are our\nenemies(i.e., Al Qaeda).
464575
Look, if you're going to voice an opinion against something- you'll make a more convincing argument if you actually KNOW HOW TO SPELL that which you oppose.  \n\nSocialists are anti-right wing, not just anti-Dubya.  They take this position because power in the hands of the religious right generally spells disaster for the poor and the environment, shrinks the middle class, further lines the pockets of the uber-wealthy, and supports religiously sponsored ignorance.
412512
You can't prove a negative.\n\nIt's also very difficult to argue with someone who takes an emotional rather than a reasoned approach to argument.
148153
The confrontation of the West with Communism, Strauss wrote in The City and Man, has demonstrated that "no bloody or unbloody change of society can eradicate the evil in man: as long as there will be men, there will be malice, envy and hatred, and hence there cannot be a society which does not have to employ coercive restraint." Strauss implies, among other things, that the extravagant hope for permanent progress in human affairs believed in by Woodrow Wilson and his contemporary admirers is a delusion. In particular, Strauss wrote, the ideal of "a universal state, unitary or federative" (Strauss appears to be speaking of the United Nations) is also a delusion. "If that federation is taken too seriously," said Strauss, "as a milestone on man's onward march toward the perfect and hence universal society, one is bound to take great risks supported by nothing but an inherited and perhaps antiquated hope, and thus to endanger the very progress one endeavors to bring about."\n\nTo begin with, then, according to Strauss each nation should conduct its own foreign policy, and it should not turn its policy over to international organizations. In current parlance, Strauss was a unilateralist, not a multilateralist.\n\nread more at the link below
492142
Here's some articles I found. Hope they help.\n\nRegards
542744
#1: The word 'oppostions' does not exist. Next time, check your spelling before you submit your question.\n\n#2: Even if you're asking about 'oppositions'; it has many meanings, which one do you mean? \n\n#3: Assuming you meant oppositions=enemy/foe, then the opposite of it is ally/friend.