For a long time, Geology was a secondary science, being mainly preoccupied with the detailed mapping of the Earth. Until the middle of the 20th century, most papers would have titles similar to: “The Geology of Quadrangle NN.” Astronomy’s equivalent to Geology would have been Tycho Brahe, whose painstaking efforts to map the skies and all of its celestial bodies led his follower, Johannes Kepler, to develop the Laws of Planetary Motion. Geology had not yet developed a theory to unify the measurements it had been making for over a century.
Then, in the 1950’s and the 1960’s, a revolution happened in Geology, made possible by technological advancement. Geoscientists could now study the ocean floors, which had previously been an impossible subject of study. This resulted in new sciences, such as Geophysics and Bathymetry, playing greater roles in the development of geologic thought, despite the apparent lack of historical and foundational knowledge of geology on the part of these newcomers. During this exciting time of new discoveries and a great accumulation of valuable new data, a race had begun to reach a Great Theory of the Earth. Though a great many theories were tossed around in that time, it is not surprising that these newcomers rallied for Plate Tectonic Theory, which is a theory that is based on the single most compelling and shocking discovery to come out of the oceanic research of the 1950’s: just about all of the oceanic crust on the planet is 200 million years old or younger. The creation of Subduction as a model for explaining this strange discovery was the most convincing and important conclusion that resulted from the discussion.
But by prematurely creating a truly global one-size-fits-all theory, one that finally restored to Geology a prestige it once had, any scientist whose research was based locally or regionally and who produced results which were contradictory to this theory would in some cases be ignored and in other cases be suppressed. There may be a personal stake in the overlooking of contradictory evidence, or one may just simply remain unconvinced of the conclusion. Such contradictory evidence sometimes involves a lengthy and elaborate alternative model, if only from the vantage of one safely couched in the living space of the dominant belief where simplicity is expected. Other alternatives are equally simplistic, such as Expanding Earth theory, but lack a convincing mechanism for expansion. But as proponents of such theories point out, a theory should not be rejected based on the implications of is conclusion but on the merits of its evidence. Yet regardless of the great gap between the main camp and all the others, skeptics are beginning to gather in greater numbers to discuss other concepts.
The first major push of these alternative concepts and the scientists who proposed them came in the late 80’s and early 90’s. Following the International Geological Congress in 1989, a group of geologists with mixed views gathered at the Smithsonian Institution to discuss other ideas. Those involved were a mixture of everything from Plate Tectonic devotees to proponents of brand new concepts. The content of the discussion was later published in the form of an anthology called “New Concepts in Global Tectonics.” Then, following the 30th International Geological Congress in Beijing in August, 1996, a newsletter was formed by the same name. The response was overwhelming, so much so that the editor had to recommend to potential contributors other publications, such as the Greek journal Theophrastus Publications, in order to accommodate the sudden influx of papers. The newsletter is now a respected journal with several thousand readers.
No comments:
Post a Comment