Question

In reexamining mid-twentieth-century geophysical resistance to Alfred Wegener’s hypothesis of continental drift, science historian Julian Vance avoids both the hagiographic impulse to portray Wegener as a solitary visionary crushed by dogmatists and the retrospective dismissiveness that views his opponents as mere obstructionists. Focus is directed instead onto the formidable mathematical objections raised by Sir Harold Jeffreys, whose calculations regarding the rigidity of the Earth's mantle presented a seemingly insurmountable physical barrier to horizontal crustal movement given the state of mechanics at the time. Vance acknowledges that Jeffreys’s physical models were rigorously constructed within the parameters of Newtonian mechanics, yet Vance stops short of vindicating Jeffreys entirely. Rather, Vance highlights how Jeffreys's unwavering reliance on idealized solid-state equations blinded him to emerging empirical evidence from marine geology. Consequently, Vance’s appraisal of Jeffreys is marked by a deliberate balance: while conceding the mechanical validity of Jeffreys’s counterarguments relative to prevailing mid-century physics, Vance censures his epistemological inflexibility in refusing to adapt those models when confronted with incompatible observational data.

Based on the passage, which of the following statements accurately characterize the author's attitude toward Sir Harold Jeffreys's opposition to continental drift? Select all that apply.