On The Necessity of Geology
There is an urgent need for talking and teaching geology.
Many people don’t know it. They think geology is rocks, but if they’re not rock aficionados, it’s nothing to do with them. So our K-12 schools inadequately teach the earth sciences (pdf). People don’t learn about geology, and they grow up to move to hazardous areas without being aware of the risks. They grow into politicians who feel it’s smart to sneer at volcano monitoring. They become people who don’t understand what geologists can and cannot do, and imprison scientists who couldn’t predict the unpredictable.
So we need to talk geology, anywhere and everywhere we can.
A while ago at work, we got on the subject of earthquakes. I don’t remember how it happened, but suddenly, I was surrounded by a gaggle of people whilst I pulled up a diagram of the local subduction zone and delivered a mini-lecture on how it works.
You’d think such pontification would drive people away. It didn’t. They were riveted...
more> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/rosetta-stones/2013/03/21/on-the-necessity-of-geology/?WT.mc_id=SA_sharetool_Twitter
= new reply since forum marked as read
I was a student who soaked up everything I could about geology while studying for another degree program, it was almost as if I had audited a geology degree at the same time that I was involved in social science. I even worked for the Geosciences Dept for work study during several semesters and went on all the field trips I could find time for. I talk geology with someone at least four times a week because so many don't understand it and with those whom I know from school who do get it. I also think in those terms whenever I go outside, along with the ecological elements in biospheric terms... it's a great way to look at the world every day.
Good post.
...where I first learned the word 'diastrophism'.
The text was Earth Science: The World We Live In, 3rd edition, 1965, by Namowitz and Stone. I still have my copy.
The book has no mention of plate tectonics. The single reference to Continental Drift consists of 2 paragraphs:
Supporters of this theory point to the map of the world to show that Africa and South America would fit together nicely, and North America and Europe would too -- if not so neatly. Critics ask what forces would cause a continent to break up and drift, and what forces created earlier mountains not located on "leading edges". Critics also question the supposed fitting together of the continents. What do you think?
Not surprising that I don't recall the discussion in class on this topic after 40 odd years. I don't know what I thought at the time.
Now the evidence for plate tectonics is incontrovertible. Science is wonderful. I know I gained a deeper appreciation for the earth and the life upon it and for the cosmos in which it all resides with every scientific conclusion that I learned about, and with every yet unanswered question I have been presented.
And, yes, I am riveted by plate subduction...I live just below the right hand arrow on the diagram -
Thanks for the post, VLR.
...was more political than scientific.
Here's the article from Scientus.org, where I got the first CD graphic in my reply: http://www.scientus.org/Wegener-Continental-Drift.html. From that article:
Since his ideas challenged scientists in geology, geophysics, zoogeography and paleontology, it demonstrates the reactions of different communities of scientists. The reactions by the leading authorities in the different disciplines were so strong and so negative that serious discussion of the concept stopped. One noted scientist, the geologist Barry Willis, seemed to be speaking for the rest when he said:
"...further discussion of it merely encumbers the literature and befogs the mind of fellow students."
Barry Willis's and the other scientists wishes were fulfilled. Discussion did stop in the larger scientific community and students' minds were not befogged. The world had to wait until the 1960's for a wide discussion of the Continental Drift Theory to be restarted.
Why did Alfred Wegener's work produce such a reaction? He was much more diplomatic in presenting his theory than Galileo. Although he believed himself to be right and that some of his arguments were compelling, he knew he would need more support to convince others. His immediate goal was to have the concept openly discussed. Wegener did not even present Continental Drift as a proven theory. These modest goals did not spare him. The fact that his work crossed disciplines exposed him to the territoriality of scientific disciplines. The authorities in the various disciplines attacked him as an interloper that did not fully grasp their own subject. More importantly however, was that even the possibility of Continental Drift was a huge threat to the established authorities in each of the disciplines.
One can't underestimate the effect of a radical new viewpoint on those established in a discipline. The authorities in these fields are authorities because of their knowledge of the current view of their discipline. A radical new view on their discipline could be a threat to their own authority. One of Alfred Wegener's critics, the geologist R. Thomas Chamberlain, could not have summarized this threat any better :
"If we are to believe in Wegener's hypothesis we must forget everything which has been learned in the past 70 years and start all over again."
The diagram from my reply showed fossil distribution across continents. The following shows geologic matches between South America and Africa:
If those two diagrams had appeared in my earth science text book, along with other evidence and questions, the class discussion might have been more spirited and meaningful.
It's important not only to teach science, but to teach the methodology and philosophy of science: the cycle of question, observation, hypothesis, prediction, and confirmation/refutation. That's the fun part!
Thanks again, VLR.
we found a very old version of an intro geology text that had the old theory that the earth was hollow and full of wind. As a Hydrogeologist, I just had to have that for my library, unfortunately it has become lost among the boxes that we still have from cleaning out the place. One of these days I will find it again, I'm sure of it.
It is fun to see how these things have changed over time. My dad took a geology for non-geologists course when he was at UT Austin back in his day and still has his text from the class. I looked and found that I used the same text, just a much newer and revised version. It was fun to go through that as well, just to see what they taught him versus what I learned.
Science is a wondrous thing and just keeps getting better.
There are far too many people who don't know enough.
On geology, I remember when I moved back to Washington state, I looked up the lahar flows when I chose a place to live.
