What about mantle plumes?

[Dymanic]

Every time I see someone complaining about egos and science, that egos are ahead of evidence, I also hear alarm bells. No one will deny that ego clashes happen in science, clashes that ideally should not happen. Science is a human entreprise and thus subject to eventual failures generated by human nature. But it seems, from where I am standing, you are overestimating the role of egos and politics.

Perhaps. But then, I'm not even sure it's possible to estimate that role with perfect accuracy all of the time.

Example- last Friday I was watced three talks on AGW from the folks at the "no" side. Make no mistake, those were top researchers, whose credentials and CVs would humble most people. I will not enter on OT specifics, suffice to say they were showing some rather interesting data, some of which I could understand, since they were well within my field, some other flew way high above my head. Sure, there were issues with their interpretations (the ones I could understand), but they completely lost me when the complaints against politics, dogma et al started.

I don't see much room to deny that the issue has been clouded by politics, dogma, et al. Do you?

If the data is good, if the interpretation is good, you will not need to resort to whining. The outcome will be good. It might take some time, but it will happen.

With some things, it seems to be largely a question of whether the science will overcome the politics before it's too late to do anything about it, but if we go too much into that, any further hope of limiting the discussion to the less pressing issue of mantle plumes is doomed. Another book still waiting to make the top of my "to read" list is one called "Merchants of Doubt". I think it examines in some detail the way science, economics, and politics can get all balled up.

And regarding plumes, convection cells, etc., I sugest you to check the relatively recent works on tomography of the Earth as well as more recent works on the driving mechanisms of plate movements.

My understanding is that efforts to locate the predicted large convection cells through seismic tomography have so far failed to produce results (which, of course, does not stand by itself as evidence that they do not exist, but still). My information may be outdated, in which case I'd appreciate being directed toward more recent efforts which have produced results.

 

[dlorde]

And I should emphasize one point: dinosaurs DID NOT go extinct. In fact, my wife ate one for supper. This is neither trivial nor facetious: we cannot talk about THE extinction of THE dinosaurs because they're still with us.

Most of them went extinct. Let's call it 'the major extinction event involving the dinosaurs'

 

[Tim Thompson]

Mantle Plumes

I'll admit that I find the idea of mantle plumes driving tectonics to be quite interesting. { ... } Are they real? Are they the driving force for tectonics and rifting?

Certainly mantle plumes are real, and subject to being imaged & studied by tomography, e.g., Pilidou, et al., 2004 (unlike astronomy, most geophysical papers are not widely available online). And see the book Mantle Convection in the Earth and Planets by Schubert, Turcotte & Olson; Cambridge University Press 2001 (my copy, which I bought in 2003, is a single 940 page paperback, but it has since been released as a two-volume set).

I don't think that the driving force is quite right. Plumes are a driving force, but just part of a system which includes slab-pull, amongst other forces. But convection in the mantle, in general, is very well established.

 

[Correa Neto]

Perhaps. But then, I'm not even sure it's possible to estimate that role with perfect accuracy all of the time.
I don't see much room to deny that the issue has been clouded by politics, dogma, et al. Do you?

AGW is one of those topics where passions can inflame pretty quickly and to searing temperatures. Passions burn intensely, but eventually the whole thing gets cooler. That's when reason wins. It may take longer than you wish, but evetually it happens -if you have right stuff.

May I ask if you happen to have something better to offer than the current way scientific community does its work? Or you just doubt the whole process for whatever reason?

With some things, it seems to be largely a question of whether the science will overcome the politics before it's too late to do anything about it, but if we go too much into that, any further hope of limiting the discussion to the less pressing issue of mantle plumes is doomed. Another book still waiting to make the top of my "to read" list is one called "Merchants of Doubt". I think it examines in some detail the way science, economics, and politics can get all balled up.

In some cases, it actually happens (Lisenko comes to mind), but it will not, it can not last forever and its also, according to my anecdotal and restrict experience, the driving force. I've seen lots of major and minor things change and evidence was the main driving force.

My understanding is that efforts to locate the predicted large convection cells through seismic tomography have so far failed to produce results (which, of course, does not stand by itself as evidence that they do not exist, but still). My information may be outdated, in which case I'd appreciate being directed toward more recent efforts which have produced results.

Researchers have postulated convetion cells of different shapes and sizes, depending on how, where and when they approach the subject. Small-scale, large-scale, layered convection cells, whole-mantle, continous, discontinous... Geology is science, geology is not religion, so expect no consensus. Dominant point of view for a given time, yes, but consensus will be very rare if not absent. Maybe you are experiencing some confusion due to the number of possible explanations presented and dumped as our (still limited) knowledge of Earth's interior advanced. Large scale was proposed earlier, then as new data apperea, small-scale and/or layered cells, mantle avalanches, plumes, superplumes, episodic flow...
A quick googling on mantle tomography and convection for 2011 provided this:
http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~rhie/class/PDF/Lay.AREPS.V39.P91.2011.pdf
http://gizmo.geotop.uqam.ca/forteA/Moucha_and_Forte_NG_2011.pdf
http://www.ees.nmt.edu/outside/Geop/Ristra/papers/Ristra_Tomo_preprint.pdf
http://www.gseis.rice.edu/Reprints/R064_LiuEL11G3.pdf
Expanding a bit the time period you'll get more, like this one:
http://igppweb.ucsd.edu/~gabi/papers/jgr.mar06.pdf
These folks interpretate their data as indicative of convection cells. If you agree or not with them, well, that's another issue.

 

[catsmate]

I find the basalt floods fascinating as I've seen the evidence of such magma floods nearby. You can't help but be awed at the magma flood when you see the evidence.

And Yellowstone is a fantastic place to visit. I keep an eye on the quake activity at Mammoth Lakes. It's more active than Yellowstone as far as quake activity goes.

Interesting link, thanks.

Slightly offtopic but I just learned that one of my favourite authors is planning to destroy the world with a Yellowstone Caldera eruption starting next month.

A supervolcanic eruption in Yellowstone Park sends lava and mud flowing toward populated areas, and clouds of ash drifting across the country. The fallout destroys crops and livestock, clogs machinery, and makes cities uninhabitable. Those who survive find themselves caught in an apocalyptic catastrophe in which humanity has no choice but to rise from the ashes and recreate the world...

 

[Dymanic]

AGW is one of those topics where passions can inflame pretty quickly and to searing temperatures. Passions burn intensely, but eventually the whole thing gets cooler. That's when reason wins. It may take longer than you wish, but evetually it happens -if you have right stuff.

Yes, it's taking longer than I wish, and I don't think it's for any lack of "the right stuff" within the scientific community, but I'd really hate to see this discussion end up stuck in that quagmire.

May I ask if you happen to have something better to offer than the current way scientific community does its work?

Allow me to quote another reviewer of the above-mentioned book:

Almost 50 years after Tuzo Wilson suggested that theEmperor-Hawaii volcanic chain formed by the motion of the Pacific Plate over a “hot spot” in the mantle – the forerunner of the Jason Morgan’s subsequent 1971 “Plume” concept, a growing group of “plumesceptics” is voicing concerns over observations that are perceived to be at variance with the model. One of these is Gillian Foulger, who recounts how she puzzled over a low-wave-speed anomaly beneath Iceland. This terminated in the transition zone, rather than in the lower mantle, as would be envisaged by the classic Plume model. She recalls being dumbstruck with astonishment when Don Anderson (a noted Plumesceptic) suggested that perhaps the widely assumed plume beneath Iceland did not exist. However, despite the importance for the Earth Sciences of establishing the primary cause of intraplate volcanism, “Plumists” and “Plume-sceptics” appear to have settled rather comfortably into two diametrically opposed camps, with little mutual discourse.

"Diametrically opposed camps with little mutual discourse". Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Does that represent the best possible way for the scientific community to do its work?

Or you just doubt the whole process for whatever reason?

I consider doubt to be the most vital aspect of the process.

Maybe you are experiencing some confusion due to the number of possible explanations presented and dumped as our (still limited) knowledge of Earth's interior advanced.

Considering the plethora of explanations, maybe anyone who isn't confused simply hasn't been paying attention.

Large scale was proposed earlier, then as new data apperea, small-scale and/or layered cells, mantle avalanches, plumes, superplumes, episodic flow...

Right, right, but then one way of looking at all of that is that when data that would have supported the initial hypothesis failed to appear, that outcome "increasingly invoked a variety of ad hoc explanations to deal with the inconsistencies." (quoting the same reviewer, either quoting or paraphrasing Foulger herself). One of Foulger's points appears to be that the word "plume" is rather poorly defined, and that perhaps one of the reasons is that adjusting the definition is one way of resolving inconsistencies.

 

[Dinwar]

Allow me to quote another reviewer of the above-mentioned book:

What I'm reading is that you don't actually participate in science. You get your information about how we work from reading books on the subject. Sorry, but that's pretty much the worst way to go about it.

I consider doubt to be the most vital aspect of the process.

Wrong. DATA are the most vital aspect of the process. There IS such a thing as unreasonable doubt, and skepticism merely for the sake of skepticism is as much a road block on scientific progress as dogmatism.

Right, right, but then one way of looking at all of that is that when data that would have supported the initial hypothesis failed to appear, that outcome "increasingly invoked a variety of ad hoc explanations to deal with the inconsistencies." (quoting the same reviewer, either quoting or paraphrasing Foulger herself). One of Foulger's points appears to be that the word "plume" is rather poorly defined, and that perhaps one of the reasons is that adjusting the definition is one way of resolving inconsistencies.

Welcome to the real-world version of science. This happens. It happens more frequently than we like to admit. Check out any journal that publishes a lot of taxonomy papers--I'd be willing to bet that half include some taxonomic revision, and a good portion of those include breaking up taxa that have become garbage-bin taxa (if you don't know where to put it, it goes there). In stratigraphy this is also common--I recently had to deal with the Chico Formation, a Southern California formation who's name had been so expanded over about 100 years that it no longer had any stratigraphic validity (not just me saying that--SoCal stratigraphers made a point of at least starting to apply stratigraphically valid names to formations out here). No, this isn't a good thing. We shoudl limit ourselves to the proper terms. That said, science is more than able to adequately deal with an overly expanded definition. Particularly in the Earth Sciences, we do it all the time. I know it's not part of the scientific method you were taught in school, and it certainly is worth fixing where ever it happens, but complaining that it somehow represents a failure of science as such is rather rediculous.

 

[volcano]

I think it mostly represents the viewpoint of a single individual, Gillian R. Foulger, Professor of Geophysics at Durham University, and relies a lot on material appearing in her book, "Plates Versus Plumes, A Geological Controversy.

Foulger, Anderson, and Natland are the names that I usually think of. The debate is a bit of strawman, really-- sure, some of things we initially described as "plumes" (if we simply define "plume" to mean something like "a localized upwelling in the mantle") may not actually plumes-- but just because SOME features aren't plumes doesn't mean that NO features are plumes. Being more specific with the terminology would certainly be helpful, and Foulger isn't the first person to recommend that-- but we're still working out the specifics of features that the community calls plumes, like Hawaii. As technology improves (better tomography, etc.), I'm certain we'll be better able to quantify the specific qualities shared by what we are comfortable calling "plumes," which will eventually lead to prescriptive, rather than descriptive, terminology. Maybe

 

[Dymanic]

What I'm reading is that you don't actually participate in science. You get your information about how we work from reading books on the subject. Sorry, but that's pretty much the worst way to go about it.

If it's true that reading books is the worst way to get information about science, I'd say that's very bad news for the, let's say, ninety-something percent of us who crave knowledge and yet are not "scientists" (though that is perhaps another term that maybe not everyone would define in exactly the same way). I suspect that there might be a university professor or two who would be disappointed to hear it as well. Of course, during the last few decades many of us common folk have gained access to a lot of written information appearing in forms other than books per se, and a lot of that written information covers in great detail the specifics of how scientists work. Is that maybe like the second-worst way?

My five-year-old grandson and I spent a couple of pleasant hours the other day dismantling nests of mud dauber wasps, comparing larva at different stages of development, etc. Did you know that before placing their eggs in the cells, those wasps pack each one with several spiders that they've non-fatally paralyzed with their sting so as to provide the larvae with a fresh (as in "live") food supply? Well, okay, I did, but it wasn't because I read it in a book or anywhere else; I've conducted that exploration before. My question to you is: Were my grandson and I "doing science"? If not, can you explain why? And if I had learned it from a book, would that not be "doing science"?

DATA are the most vital aspect of the process.

I must disagree. If we're talking generally about "the whole scientific process", then the ability of that process to doubt itself -- its preconceptions, assumptions, biases, methods, conclusions, etc -- are the very foundation. Lacking that, data are worthless. At best.

There IS such a thing as unreasonable doubt, and skepticism merely for the sake of skepticism is as much a road block on scientific progress as dogmatism.

I could not agree more. Useful as a tool, potentially harmful as a toy. Or as a... what? Form of dogmatism in itself?

Welcome to the real-world version of science. This happens. It happens more frequently than we like to admit.

So... we actually are in agreement on this point?

I know it's not part of the scientific method you were taught in school, and it certainly is worth fixing where ever it happens, but complaining that it somehow represents a failure of science as such is rather rediculous.

Good thing I wasn't saying that then. Science is "self-correcting". Implicit in that is that it makes mistakes. There might be those who, rather than accepting that as simply part of the process of gaining knowledge, would call it "failure of science". If you have made the mistake of counting me among them, then a correction is in order.

 

[Dinwar]

If it's true that reading books is the worst way to get information about science,

It's a good way to get information about what science discovers. It's a horrible way to try to understand how science works. And if that's bad news to the non-scientists who want to better understand how science works, tough. It's the same as any other field of activity--you don't know how the members of that community interact until you're a member of that community and observe the interactions.

Until you find a book that describes the advances in Earth Science that have come about as a direct result of copious consumption of alcohol (and there are a number of them), it's easy to show that your method of figuring out how we interact (ie, reading books) is deeply flawed. Simply put, there's a lot of stuff that's part of science and part of collaboration that will never, ever be put into books. Mostly because it looks at the surface like a few people having a beer after work, or a husband and wife talking during supper. Sometimes it's because of court orders or statutes of limitations (that's another thing--unless your books describe the parties that get people kicked out of hotels, or the bar-room brawls, or the like, your source of information is again deeply flawed). But at any rate it's those types of things that are a part of science as an activity conducted by humans, rather than the cylons we try to portray ourselves as in print, that you're missing.

I must disagree. If we're talking generally about "the whole scientific process", then the ability of that process to doubt itself -- its preconceptions, assumptions, biases, methods, conclusions, etc -- are the very foundation. Lacking that, data are worthless. At best.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Doubt is meaningless to me unless you can present a valid reason to doubt the conclusion--ie, unless you can provide data. Conclusions are equally meaningless without support--ie, without data. I mean, Aristotilian physics is a perfect example of what happens when you ask questions but don't have data.

Good thing I wasn't saying that then. Science is "self-correcting". Implicit in that is that it makes mistakes. There might be those who, rather than accepting that as simply part of the process of gaining knowledge, would call it "failure of science". If you have made the mistake of counting me among them, then a correction is in order.

I'm curious as to what your point is, then. Science is self-correcting. This is one of those errors that science corrects over time. The only issue with mantle plumes is that enough time hasn't passed yet. Obviously the issue is being addressed.

 

[Dymanic]

It's the same as any other field of activity--you don't know how the members of that community interact until you're a member of that community and observe the interactions.

Hmm... Jane Goodall. Member of the chimp community? Scientist? Qualified to make observations regarding chimp interaction?

Simply put, there's a lot of stuff that's part of science and part of collaboration that will never, ever be put into books. Mostly because it looks at the surface like a few people having a beer after work, or a husband and wife talking during supper. Sometimes it's because of court orders or statutes of limitations (that's another thing--unless your books describe the parties that get people kicked out of hotels, or the bar-room brawls, or the like, your source of information is again deeply flawed). But at any rate it's those types of things that are a part of science as an activity conducted by humans, rather than the cylons we try to portray ourselves as in print, that you're missing.

All this talk about bar-room brawls and court orders and whatnot makes it sound as though the process can be a bit painful at times. And ugly. And rather prone to spilling over into less "pure" areas of human endeavor such as politics and economics. And possibly involving a certain amount of chest-thumping.

I'm curious as to what your point is, then.

I'd say my main point is that while questions regarding mantle plumes and the driving force for plate tectonics seems to be rather widely perceived as having been long settled, not all geologists share that confidence, and the reasons may not necessarily be based entirely on the science.

 

[Dinwar]

Hmm... Jane Goodall. Member of the chimp community? Scientist? Qualified to make observations regarding chimp interaction?

Are you implying that you've spent decades researching the way scientists behave? Or are you implying that reading books on science provides the same level of understanding of how science works that decades of analyzing ape behavior gives Dr. Goodall on how apes behave?

All this talk about bar-room brawls and court orders and whatnot makes it sound as though the process can be a bit painful at times. And ugly. And rather prone to spilling over into less "pure" areas of human endeavor such as politics and economics. And possibly involving a certain amount of chest-thumping.

Sure. I'll never deny that. What I'm saying is that you don't understand how the process works, because you've never participated in it. Yes, there's some chest-thumping (and more head-thumping than there probably should be). That said, you're completely ignorant of why chests and heads were thumped, why they resorted to such measures, and what the results were. All you know--your ENTIRE dataset in this case--is what I've posted. How confident are you in any conclusion you draw from that dataset?

I'd say my main point is that while questions regarding mantle plumes and the driving force for plate tectonics seems to be rather widely perceived as having been long settled, not all geologists share that confidence, and the reasons may not necessarily be based entirely on the science.

So......your point is to say something that's obvious to anyone who's ever participated in a scientific debate, and which you yourself admit is a relatively minor issue (in the grand scheme of things, at least) that the process of science will eventually work out.

 

[Dymanic]

Are you implying that you've spent decades researching the way scientists behave? Or are you implying that reading books on science provides the same level of understanding of how science works that decades of analyzing ape behavior gives Dr. Goodall on how apes behave?

I'm simply having a hard time accepting your rather broad assertion at face value, and thought to test it using the first example that popped into my head (well, the second, but since you ignored the first). I don't mind so much you insisting on making it about ME (that's one of my favorite subjects, actually), but I wonder if you'd care to make any attempt to answer those questions more directly? Pretend I'm not here, and use those questions as a starting point for making your position more clear? I mean, since we long ago mostly set aside the issue raised by the OP and turned to the broader question of "what science is supposed to do" or "how science works" or whatever, and since you clearly feel that you possess particularly penetrating insights into that, and this being an "Educational Foundation" and all...

...Oh, wait. I see. It would be pointless anyway because "you can't understand how the process works if you've never participated in it". So, never mind, I guess.

All you know--your ENTIRE dataset in this case--is what I've posted. How confident are you in any conclusion you draw from that dataset?

How confident are you that what you've posted does in fact constitute my entire dataset?

So......your point is to say something that's obvious to anyone who's ever participated in a scientific debate and which you yourself admit is a relatively minor issue (in the grand scheme of things, at least) that the process of science will eventually work out.

Pretty much.

 

[volcano]

I'd say my main point is that while questions regarding mantle plumes and the driving force for plate tectonics seems to be rather widely perceived as having been long settled, not all geologists share that confidence, and the reasons may not necessarily be based entirely on the science.

Settled? Not at all. I'd say that the general consensus is that plumes exist, and plate tectonics occurs, and mantle convection almost certainly plays a role in both. But the specifics are still being debated, much as we debate whether the Earth is 4.54 billion years old or 4.56 billion years old.

All this talk about bar-room brawls and court orders and whatnot makes it sound as though the process can be a bit painful at times. And ugly. And rather prone to spilling over into less "pure" areas of human endeavor such as politics and economics. And possibly involving a certain amount of chest-thumping.

Next month I'll be hanging out with nearly 20,000 other scientists at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting to discuss these (and other) issues, and I don't anticipate any bar-room brawls or court orders. A minor amount of chest-thumping will probably occur, as usual, but for the most part we'll just enjoy a beer or two while we civilly (±heatedly) discuss the latest issues in Earth Science. The chest-thumpers and blowhards are usually pretty easy to identify (they tend to make themselves known) and can be amusing to watch, but their actions aren't representative of the community as a whole.

 

[Mister Earl]

Slightly offtopic but I just learned that one of my favourite authors is planning to destroy the world with a Yellowstone Caldera eruption starting next month.

Oooh, you just made my day. I like this author also, and was completely unaware of this book coming out.

 

[Dymanic]

Next month I'll be hanging out with nearly 20,000 other scientists at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting to discuss these (and other) issues, and I don't anticipate any bar-room brawls or court orders.

I note that high school students as well as teachers may register to attend free!

 

[Correa Neto]

Yes, it's taking longer than I wish, and I don't think it's for any lack of "the right stuff" within the scientific community, but I'd really hate to see this discussion end up stuck in that quagmire.

Somethings can not and/or should not be rushed. Good science requires a lot of work. Data must be acquired, data quality must be assured, data must be interpreted. If you need say, 6-months of data collection, how are you supposed to rush this procces? if my model predicts that something will happen within 60 years or so, how am I supposed to speed the proccess? If the available data is subject to controversy, to multiple interpretations, what are you supposed to do?

This put, remember that scientific community provides the data, its interpretations and suggests possible courses of action. If society fails to put this to any good use, is science to be blamed? Maybe you are aiming at the wrong target, maybe the source of your discomfort lies somewhere else.

"Diametrically opposed camps with little mutual discourse". Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Does that represent the best possible way for the scientific community to do its work?

Nope. Sometimes there are more than two camps. Quite often there's actual collaboration between researchers with different views. Ever considered your sampling might be biased? Agreements usually doesn't make it to the news...

But again, any suggestions on how to improve science and scientists' behavior? Got any better alternatives?

I consider doubt to be the most vital aspect of the process.

Doubt alone is worthless. Reliable data and the building of impartial conclusions over the data, followed by carefull and impartial examinations of the conclusions and eventual corrections or even the complete dumping of the initial conclusions are the key issues.

Note the "eventual corrections or even the complete dumping of the initial conclusions". Its the self-correcting aspect of science and the key to your next observation.

Considering the plethora of explanations, maybe anyone who isn't confused simply hasn't been paying attention.

I believe you will find very few areas in science where initial concepts have not suffered some major overhauls. It may be confusing if you are not following a certain field while it evolves. Another important point is that a given data set may have two or more interpretations (quite common in geology, BTW) and in many circunstances, both might look pretty convincing. Its science, not religion.

Right, right, but then one way of looking at all of that is that when data that would have supported the initial hypothesis failed to appear, that outcome "increasingly invoked a variety of ad hoc explanations to deal with the inconsistencies." (quoting the same reviewer, either quoting or paraphrasing Foulger herself). One of Foulger's points appears to be that the word "plume" is rather poorly defined, and that perhaps one of the reasons is that adjusting the definition is one way of resolving inconsistencies.

I would say the initial hypothesis and nomenclature adopted by other researchers to other areas, were tested with new data and then some researchers made adjusts to the original model, other people created new models while other folks just said 'WTF?!" and are waiting to see how the whole thing evolves. Yes, some chest-thumping and other types of drama might have happened and I believe this was much to the amusement of most observers.

By the way, on a not completely OT note, anyone seeing chest-thumping, bitter whining, politics, etc. related to the recent possible detection of faster-than-light neutrinos?

 

[Dymanic]

Somethings can not and/or should not be rushed. Good science requires a lot of work. Data must be acquired, data quality must be assured, data must be interpreted. If you need say, 6-months of data collection, how are you supposed to rush this procces? if my model predicts that something will happen within 60 years or so, how am I supposed to speed the proccess? If the available data is subject to controversy, to multiple interpretations, what are you supposed to do?

It seems to me that to one extent or another, data are always subject to controversy and to multiple interpretations, whether they are actually subjected to that or not. It's mostly about degrees of confidence. It is possible to speed up some aspects of the process, say by devoting more resources to collecting and processing data, but that takes money, and it often involves other tricky stuff like obtaining official permission from various governments to access the places you'd most like to collect the data. So economics and politics have ways of inserting themselves into the process before the data are even aquired, let alone interpreted.

This put, remember that scientific community provides the data, its interpretations and suggests possible courses of action.

Or, it works entirely the other way around, with powerful members of society, who happen to be deeply vested in certain courses of action, providing strong motivation to any scientists willing to stand behind interpretations that favor those interests, even if doing so means carefully selecting and weighting the data in such a way as to arrive at the interpretations which have been predetermined by their benefactors to be most desireable precisely because they are not shared by a strong consensus of scientists with interpretations suggesting different courses of action. But like I said, that's one particular quagmire we might do well to avoid.

Sometimes there are more than two camps. Quite often there's actual collaboration between researchers with different views. Ever considered your sampling might be biased? Agreements usually doesn't make it to the news...

Perhaps that question would be better put to the reviewer who wrote those words, which I merely quoted, or to Foulger herself. In considering another sample, keep in mind that if you do not agree with this, your disagreement is really not with me, but with Dr. Andrew E. Moore, Senior Geologist for African Queen Mines:

The great debate between the “Neptunists” and “Plutonists” set the tone for an unintended but long-continued tradition in the development of geology as a science, with diametrically opposing schools of thought offering radically different proposals to explain a common observation. Such divergence of opinion should in principle be a stimulus to design research to validate, reject or reconcile opposing viewpoints. The reality in many of the great geological debates has often been the development of entrenched opposing camps, defending respective paradigms with the fervour of prophets of religious dogma, with little constructive dialogue, despite the potentially widereaching implications for our understanding of Earth processes.

By the way, on a not completely OT note, anyone seeing chest-thumping, bitter whining, politics, etc. related to the recent possible detection of faster-than-light neutrinos?

Give it time. Some things cannot and/or should not be rushed.

 

[catsmate]

Oooh, you just made my day. I like this author also, and was completely unaware of this book coming out.

Yes it caught me by surprise too. Rather different to his usual AH stuff.

 

[Correa Neto]

Warning- WOT incoming.

TLDR version- I think you are making a big mistake due to some biased sampling. It is like saying all soccer fans are bullies because of a few hooligans. You are ignoring the thousands of peaceful people that go the stadiums just to see the games, quite often with their families. They don’t make the headlines. The fights between hooligans do. Sure, the process of scientific advance is not always smooth, sometimes bad things happen. But to judge all the scientific progress as biased, dominated by “chest-thumping” and governed by “the powers to be” is just plain wrong IMHO.

Full version follows:

It seems to me that to one extent or another, data are always subject to controversy and to multiple interpretations, whether they are actually subjected to that or not. It's mostly about degrees of confidence.

You know what’s really cool about science? Everyone has the right to question someone else’s data, methodology and interpretation. This is the force behind science’s evolution. To very few things in science (especially sciences like geology) the “definitive” label can be given. We can usually just say “the best explanation judging from the available data is”… Yes, quite often its more a philosophic position. If you are looking for “definitives” and unquestionable things maybe science is not where you should be looking at. Math, perhaps?

It is possible to speed up some aspects of the process, say by devoting more resources to collecting and processing data, but that takes money, and it often involves other tricky stuff like obtaining official permission from various governments to access the places you'd most like to collect the data. So economics and politics have ways of inserting themselves into the process before the data are even aquired, let alone interpreted. [/Dynamic]

Yes and no. Lots of scientific investigations depend on data collection through time. Seismic events, gamma-ray bursts, atmospheric temperature, etc. You can’t speed data collection. Honestly, the parts regarding governments’ permits… Well, bureaucracy is a bitch, I will be the first person to say it. It is present everywhere - within governments, universities and industries. But I believe you are overestimating its role, for whatever reason (biased sampling, maybe?). Bureaucrats can’t (yet?) avoid the travel of seismic waves, for example.

Or, it works entirely the other way around, with powerful members of society, who happen to be deeply vested in certain courses of action, providing strong motivation to any scientists willing to stand behind interpretations that favor those interests, even if doing so means carefully selecting and weighting the data in such a way as to arrive at the interpretations which have been predetermined by their benefactors to be most desireable precisely because they are not shared by a strong consensus of scientists with interpretations suggesting different courses of action. But like I said, that's one particular quagmire we might do well to avoid.

Using the immortal words of CFLarsen... Evidence?

Look, I think you are making a big mistake due to some biased sampling. It is like saying all soccer fans are bullies because of a few hooligans. You are ignoring the thousands of peaceful people that go the stadiums just to see the games, quite often with their families. They don’t make the headlines. The fights between hooligans do.

I also think you should remember where complaints against “powerful members of society, who happen to be deeply vested in certain courses of action” usually come from. Usually from pseudoscience folks and in a few cases from a small number of people whom found themselves on the losing side and for whatever reason can’t take it.

Perhaps that question would be better put to the reviewer who wrote those words, which I merely quoted, or to Foulger herself. In considering another sample, keep in mind that if you do not agree with this, your disagreement is really not with me, but with Dr. Andrew E. Moore, Senior Geologist for African Queen Mines

I disagree; regardless of his qualifications, I don’t think his conclusions, or that particular quote of his within the context you are applying, are the best way to describe the situation.

The Neptunists x Plutonists episode must be seen within its own cultural and social context and I am not just talking about the influence of religion. Religion, by the way, was important only for old controversies. Even in the late XIX and early XX centuries, within the debates between Kelvin and geologists such as Geikie regarding the age of Earth, it was already clear religious folks would not get too much of a reward if Kelvin’s 20My age were correct. On a slight OT note, there is a wonderful story of a conference by Rutherford on the age of Earth, attended by Kelvin – a “powerful member of society”. No chest-thumping, no vested course of action.

Back to Neptunists x Plutonists, Abraham Werner, a German mineralogist, was not just the main proponent of Neptunism, he was a great mineralogist, helped to “build” several bright geologists of his time and also proposed a four-fold division for geological time whose influences can still be (faintly) seen in nowadays’ geological table.

For context and background, you must note that science back then had not the resources it has nowadays; very little was known about how crystals grow, for example. So, proposing hexagonal columnar joints in basalts represented “basalt crystals” was not that far-fetched, because many minerals, like quartz and beryl, form hexagonal prisms. Remember now that it was the time of Napoleonic wars. Werner, according to the accounts I am aware of (mostly from Physical Geology books), had little if any chances to become aware of Desmarest’s mapping of the “Neptunists’ graveyard” in France, where he managed to trace layers of columnar basalts until mountains which he identified as extinct volcanoes. I believe Werner was aware of Hutton’s work, mostly based on his geological time divisions which required uplift of the mountains and what could be interpreted as unconformities; I also have no idea on the length of time Werner supposed it took for his series to form.

Those were revolutionary times, that was a society that is not exactly like ours. Among the discussion subjects, there was also catastrophism, evolution, glaciation… In the end, Desmarest won, Hutton won, Darwin won and Agassis won (on the topic related to glaciers, despite Humboldt telling him to go back to study fishes). See? The main source of science’s advance is data and its interpretation, not politics.

Want to go to more recent times? Wegener won the fight. The final result was plate tectonics, which is not exactly continental drift. Why it took so long? Why it was hard? Hidden vested interests of powerful members of society? Chest-thumping? No. The reasons were not enough data, the existence of alternative explanations and the absence of a mechanism to explain continental drift. To sum, key pieces of data were not available, some of them because science lacked the means for their acquisition untill the 50's. Continental drif evolution towards plate tectonics, by the way, has a lot in common with the the story of plume theory. Sure, the process sometimes is not smooth, but to judge all the scientific progress as biased, dominated by “chest-thumping” and governed by “the powers to be” is just plain wrong IMHO.

Give it time. Some things cannot and/or should not be rushed

You think more money would speed the process? Do you think its being affected by politics, dogma or religion? And what if we wait and no chest-thumping happens?

Again, would you happen to have something better to offer than the current way scientific community does its work? Or you just doubt the whole process for whatever reason?