
Formation near Granger, WY. Photo by
author
What’s There and What’s Not
There
Jul 20, 2011
Did sediment build up
gradually over millions of years,
become pressure-transformed into
rock, somehow get lifted a mile
above sea level, and then get mostly
eroded by wind and rain until only
this tiny (compared to the original
extent) mesa remains? Or did
material with the consistency of
wet-concrete slurry flow this far
into a catastrophic global flood,
sorting itself into layers and
hardening some layers chemically or
electrically?
The popular conception of the
scientific method is that the
scientist observes a phenomenon,
develops or modifies a hypothesis to
explain it, and then tests the
hypothesis against further
observations. The three steps are
repeated until the scientist decides
that accepting the hypothesis is
more reasonable than not accepting
it.
A deeper examination reveals that
the initial observations are not
performed by a mind that is a tabula
rasa but by one that has many often
unconscious preconceptions. Indeed,
the data or sensations of
observation are indistinguishable
from the noise unless the observer
has criteria with which to
distinguish data from noise.
This is why the three steps of the
popular method should be—and often
are, although without it being
remarked—supplemented by a fourth
step, called by some “error probes,”
in which alternative preconceptions
and hypotheses are actively searched
for.
In geology, one pair of these
alternatives is what could be called
the “figure–ground inversion.” Will
we “see” geological formations as
what’s left after gradual
deformation and erosion of
continuous slabs of rock, or will we
see them as essentially undisturbed
surficial catastrophic deposits?
Since we cannot travel back in time
to observe the origin of formations,
both alternatives leave us with an
insoluble tension between seeing
what is not there and not seeing
what is there: In the first case,
the gradualist vision sees “missing”
material that has been eroded away;
the catastrophist vision sees an
episodic past of forces not present
today. In the second case, the
gradualist vision does not see
sharply limited “dumps” of material;
the catastrophist vision does not
see remains of gradual sculpting
over millions of years.
These visions are the preconceptions
that enable geologists to
distinguish data from noise. They
translate undifferentiated
data-noise into facts and
irrelevancies. On these facts—now
“observed facts”—hypotheses are
constructed, and against similarly
determined facts hypotheses are
tested. The circularity (or, better,
helicity, since the process is
repeated with new facts) of the
process is mitigated to some extent
by its iteration and more so by
error probes—by keeping alternatives
in mind.
The final choice of hypothesis—or,
rather, the temporarily popular
choice, since by the nature of the
process there cannot be
finality—will depend on which one
geologists find most useful in
helping them to do what they then
want to do. Because geologists are
human, egotistical and political
motives are an inseparable part of
the process, and the science will
always have to trickle around
declarations of finality and
conspiracies to dismiss
alternatives. Acquiescence in
pretenses of “secure knowledge” will
lead only to a self-congratulatory
sterility. Curious minds will wander
off to see things with new visions.
Mel Acheson
New
DVD
The Lightning-Scarred
Planet Mars
A video documentary that could
change everything you thought you
knew about ancient times and
symbols. In this second episode of
Symbols of an Alien Sky, David
Talbott takes the viewer on an
odyssey across the surface of Mars.
Exploring feature after feature of
the planet, he finds that only
electric arcs could produce the
observed patterns. The high
resolution images reveal massive
channels and gouges, great mounds,
and crater chains, none finding an
explanation in traditional geology,
but all matching the scars from
electric discharge experiments in
the laboratory. (Approximately 85
minutes)
Video Selections
Order Link
|