Exercise 1: Why "No Mechanism" Was a Legitimate Objection — Possible Solution ================================================================================ A scientific explanation is generally expected to specify not just that something happens, but a real, physically plausible account of how it happens. Wegener's own theory correctly identified a real pattern - matching coastlines and shared fossils across continents that are now separated by oceans - but couldn't explain the actual physical process that would let solid continental rock plow through solid ocean floor, which is what his own proposed mechanism would have required given the geological understanding of the time. Without a real, credible mechanism, geologists had a genuine, valid scientific reason to withhold acceptance - not because the underlying pattern Wegener identified was wrong, but because a theory that can't explain how its own proposed process could physically occur is genuinely incomplete, regardless of how well it explains the pattern itself. Requiring a real mechanism before fully accepting a novel causal claim is a legitimate, real scientific standard, not merely institutional gatekeeping. This is different from the ridicule and dismissiveness the real historical record also shows Wegener facing, which went beyond legitimate scientific skepticism into unfair mockery - the chapter's own point is that a real, substantive scientific objection (no mechanism) existed alongside that unfair treatment, and the two should be judged separately. ANSWER: A scientific theory needs a plausible physical explanation for how its proposed process actually works, not just a description of the pattern it explains. Wegener could describe the pattern (matching coastlines, shared fossils) but not a real, physically credible mechanism for how continents could move - a genuine, legitimate gap distinct from the separate, unfair ridicule he also faced. WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER ------------------------------ This explains the real, substantive reason a missing mechanism is a legitimate scientific objection, while distinguishing it from the separate, less defensible mockery Wegener also received.