Re: evidences against subduction theory

In article <138o3ktien7u65f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Jo Schaper <jospamnotschaper34@5socket78dot9net> wrote:

Timberwoof wrote:
In article <138ng17a9hhkd50@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Jo Schaper <jospamnotschaper34@5socket78dot9net> wrote:

George wrote:
"Jo Schaper" <jospamnotschaper34@5socket78dot9net> wrote in message
news:138m7qg38a94d30@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nicolas Krebs wrote:
I have read that some people stay in the before-1970-geology, and do
not
thrust the nowaday plate tectonic geology with subduction. Do they have
any strong evidence against the subduction theory ?
There is also the possibility that some of the 'before-1970-geology' is
correct. Plate tectonics doesn't answer all geological questions, nor
was
it intended to. As I've noted in this group before, without a hint of
crackpottery, if you're stuck in the middle of a long term craton like
North America, there's a helluva lot of geology out there which has very
little to do with subducting margins (or not).

That is true, but having a lot of geology in the middle of the continent
that doesn't have a lot to do with subduction doesn't mean that
subduction
doesn't occur elsewhere. Of course, it does. Having said that, there is
ample evidence that the middle of our continent has seen numerous rift
events, and so plate tectonics does have something to say about the
geology
of the mid-continent as well.

George
I'm a great believer in the directional oscillating pendulum of science.
It tends to swing out to the extremes of everything as it moves forward,
when reality is rarely on the peak or trough of whatever is the
currently fashionable theory.

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. "It" (science) is not a massive
object, it is a process engaged in by a lot of people. These people are
humans, not a Borg collective. Thus they have their own education,
experience, and interests. Ideas are created, discussed, ignored,
rediscovered, refined, raked over the coals, rejected, and occasionally
accepted. If you insist on some kind of mechanical analog, it's more
like a bunch of Legos being tossed about in a cement mixer than like a
pendulum.

Exactly. Someone comes up with an idea (One swing.) Someone partially
refutes the idea. (Second swing.) Third person says, "well, both Person
A and Person B are partially right." Or Person A is right, except for
points 1,2 and 3, and here is my evidence. (Pendulum swings back to the
first position, but further advanced along an orthogonal direction
(time.) Argument divides into two positions: (Might be as opposed as the
the earth is round, vs. the earth is flat. In actuality, it is neither.)

The scientific method being used to refine an idea along a track through
time is exactly what I'm talking about. There are very few propositions
in which the first position contradicting the second position is the
final word. Even the helio vs the terracentric world has been refined.
(True, the earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa, but the idea
of circles in circles in circles still hasn't been disputed: (earth
revolves around the sun, but the sun isn't the center of the universe,
it moves around the Milky Way galaxy. The Milky Way galaxy revolves
around part of the universe-- I think there are something like 14 or 15
different direction of interstellar motion we are undergoing right now.
The point is: without the back and forth of various untenable
positions, science does not advance toward a more complete understanding
and congruency with observed phenonmenon.

It's not back-and-forth. Even your example of circles within circles is
not accurately modeled or described with simple pendulum motion. Once we
were off Aristotelian motion, we were off it, never to return (in
scientific circles).

Perhaps I'm missing something. Explain to me how your "pendulum" belief
applies to, say, the progress from Aristotelian through Newtonian and
finally to Einsteinian gravity and motion. Or, say, to the understanding
of electromagnetism, starting with those monks who would zap people by
scuffing their feet on a carpet.

Through the superposition and modification of beliefs supported by
evidence (theories) as each subsequent theory more correctly fits the
data, without entirely supplanting that previous. Without the notion of
Aristotelian logic, Newtonian physics could not have been built, and
without Newtonian physics (which still works on a gross scale in
everyday life) the insights of Einsteinian gravity and motion could not
have been laid down.

What sort of science you end up with just depends on the axioms and
methods you choose at the beginnning.

That's not pendular motion.


I want to see the evidence: The structure which is PT has a reasonable
body of evidence, whereas EE does not. As far as my own corner of the
craton goes, I've heard and read enough contradictory evidence in
regards to the New Madrid Fault Zone, its activity or lack thereof, its
reasons for existence, its extent, its ancillary structures (or not) its
heat values or not, and read enough stuff which proports to explain
Yellowstone based on actual data, that its pretty clear to me that what
is important here are the data, and the hypotheses and their
ramifications, not necessarily the conclusions (which often are wildly
divergent, depending on author.)

The data and the theories are important. The data tell you what
happened. The theory tries to present that information in a coherent way
that explains and predicts.

I happen to think that much geologic evidence doesn't rise to the levele
of data. I've seen people present the results of modeling as data. Yes,
it is data. But is it evidence? Depends. Geology is science, and uses
scientific means and methods, but there is still an awful lot of SWAG
going on when you're talking lots of space and time. Not so much in
something directly observable, as mineralogy, or crystallography, or
erosional processes.

To this point, geology is notoriously bad at predicting. Largely because
of the high number of variables, the enormous quantities of time
postulated, and the big gaps in most geological evidence and data.

Tell that to the petroleum geologists.

The evidence shows that EE is a load of dingos' kidneys and that PT does
a damn good job of explaining and even predicting much of what goes on
on this planet. But nobody claimed that PT is complete. Indeed, the New
Madrid fault is not yet explained by PT. You're right: more evidence is
needed.

Actually, the New Madrid has been explained by PT, in several different
versions, on several different time scales,in numerous publications and
by dozens of contradictory theorists. What hasn't happened is any
uniform field theory of the New Madrid. And when you've got tens of
millions of people's lives, billions of dollars of property and no one
has much of a clue, that can be dangerous, and too many special
interests are involved for the science to be truly objective.

It is unfortunate that science doesn't work to economically mandated
timetables.

I don't argue for EE...no mechanism.

I'm going to put on my full-immersion fire suit now. Don Findlay will be
here any moment.

What I was actually talking about originally was hydrology, structural
geology, mineralogy, economic geology, soils geology, and other
geological aspects which are only tangentially related to PT.

People seem to think that PT is what geology is all about. Not in my book.

Okay. ::Shrug::

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ?Chris L.
an important web site: http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: evidences against subduction theory
    ... thrust the nowaday plate tectonic geology with subduction. ... Plate tectonics doesn't answer all geological questions, ... there's a helluva lot of geology out there which has ... ample evidence that the middle of our continent has seen numerous rift ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: evidences against subduction theory
    ... Do they have any strong evidence against the subduction theory? ... As I've noted in this group before, without a hint of crackpottery, if you're stuck in the middle of a long term craton like North America, there's a helluva lot of geology out there which has very little to do with subducting margins. ... Having said that, there is ample evidence that the middle of our continent has seen numerous rift events, and so plate tectonics does have something to say about the geology of the mid-continent as well. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: evidences against subduction theory
    ... thrust the nowaday plate tectonic geology with subduction. ... Plate tectonics doesn't answer all geological questions, ... there's a helluva lot of geology out there which has very ... ample evidence that the middle of our continent has seen numerous rift ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Bad science is still science
    ... Those "massive geological features" were not created at the same time. ... within a year *from evidence*. ... about geology and how geological features are formed, ... *know* that the event I propose doesn't deliver the right kind of energy. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: evidences against subduction theory
    ... Do they have any strong evidence against the subduction theory? ... As I've noted in this group before, without a hint of crackpottery, if you're stuck in the middle of a long term craton like North America, there's a helluva lot of geology out there which has very little to do with subducting margins. ... Having said that, there is ample evidence that the middle of our continent has seen numerous rift events, and so plate tectonics does have something to say about the geology of the mid-continent as well. ... "It" (science) is not a massive object, it is a process engaged in by a lot of people. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)