Re: evidences against subduction theory

Timberwoof wrote:
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).

You obviously have either no concept of comprehending something by analogy, are good at mixing unmixed metaphors and likely have entirely too much time on your hands. Fortunately, I'm good at the comprehending part, and have precious little time to waste these days. A pendulum (on earth at least) doesn't swing only in two apparent directions, but three. That's the first big idea.

I disagree that we are entirely off of Aristotelian science. Check the basic assumptions of science. They aren't based on string theory.

If you don't like my analogy...fine. Construct your own.



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.

That's not what I was describing.


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.


I actually was thinking of all the people "predicting the past" and the big theory people, not the economic/exploration geos. They're looking for something already there, not predicting what will happen based on a few loose clues. It's actually pretty amazing and a credit to human intelligence that so much exploration geology actually finds what it's looking for. Even so seeing big fuzzy ears in the grass and predicting a bunny and hassenpfeffer for dinner is a lot easier than looking at some billion year old rocks, and trying to put together a story about how they got there.
.

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. ... without the back and forth of various untenable positions, science does not advance toward a more complete understanding and congruency with observed phenonmenon. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
Quantcast