Theresa
I don't go back 100 years but I did take my first geology classes in 1965 when none of the people teaching me had heard of plate tectonics. Despite that, we were taught about Continental Drift, not least because beginning students in the UK were taught from Arthur Holmes's textbook. The evidence in favour of Continental Drift was pretty impressive, but you either decided that the alternative explanations of the observations were reasonable while the absence of a mechanism was not, or you felt that the observations were so compelling that a mechanism would eventually show up, as it did. Neither approach was deemed to be drivel, it was a question of how you called the imponderables. Faced with new evidence in the late 60s and early 70s most geologists accepted the new paradigm enthusiastically because it made coherent sense of much that seemed isolated and piecemeal. This web page is not presenting new and otherwise incomprehensible observations and it is not providing an explanation for known observations that do not have other, reasonable explanations. A new theory that does not make you see things that had puzzled you for years suddenly drop into place and creates more new problems than it solves is not a brave new paradigm, it is pointless.
Bruce
Professor Bruce Yardley
School of Earth and Environment
University of Leeds
Leeds LS2 9JT
UK
Tel. +44 (0)113 343 5227
________________________________________
From: Metamorphic Studies Group [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Theresa Jung [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 02 March 2015 10:42
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [geo-metamorphism] Plate tectonics
100 years ago, continental drift was considered as drivel by most geologists.
At that time Alfred Wegener wasn't taken seriously by most of his colleagues,
because his discoveries were new to them.
Regards - Theresa
http://innovative-planetary-science.page.tl/Plate-tectonics.htm
|