The following passage is adapted from an essay on the history of twentieth-century science.
"When Alfred Wegener first proposed in 1912 that the Earth's continents were once joined in a single landmass and had drifted apart, his peers did not merely disagree; they responded with a collective, indignant shudder. The geological establishment viewed Wegener, a meteorologist by training, as an interloper trespassing on their sacred turf. Reviews of his work were laced with a patronizing vitriol, dismissing his painstakingly gathered paleontological and climatological correspondences as the 'delirious play' of an amateur. Yet, this defensive hostility spoke volumes. Had Wegener's hypothesis been genuinely absurd, it would have been met with quiet neglect. Instead, the vociferousness of the opposition suggested that the orthodox geologists were less concerned with the scientific validity of continental drift than with the existential threat it posed to the compartmentalized specialization of their careers."
The author’s attitude toward the geological establishment’s hostile reaction to Wegener’s hypothesis is best described as which of the following?
- critical and analytical, as the author dissects the critics' harsh response to reveal their underlying professional anxietiesAnswer
- Bindifferent and objective, as the author simply presents the historical consensus of the scientific community without passing judgment
- Ccondescending and mocking, as the author derides Wegener's amateurish attempts to contribute to a field outside of meteorology
- Dapologetic and defensive, as the author attempts to justify the establishment's skepticism by highlighting the lack of a mechanism for the drift