I wrote:
>> Researchers bring to their investigations a conceptual
framework which influences what they see. [Glenn - did you see
the first issue of the short-lived journal "Catastrophist
Geology", which had an article about geologists seeing different
things in the field depending on their pre-conceptions?). So,
whilst appealing to "facts" must be valid, it is also necessary
to keep in mind that a healthy debate as to the
meaning/accuracy/completeness of the observations is warranted.<<
Glenn replied:
>> Unfortunately I have never heard of that journal. I can get
almost any article published from a local university if I have
some idea where in the world such a journal is kept. and the name
of the article. Do you know any details like this?<<
Glenn - It was perhaps unwise of me to have thrown out such a
vague reference in an obscure journal - but it was one I thought
you might have to hand (knowing something of your past interests)
- and the only one that came to mind at the time.
I made a mistake: it was not in the first issue, but part 1 of
Volume 2. The full reference is:
Chadwick, Peter. "The perception of continuity and
discontinuity". Catastrophist Geology, Volume 2, Part 1, 1977,
35-48.
Using observations of deformed rocks as his source of data,
Chadwick develops the idea that people are more inclined to see
continuity than discontinuity. This has all sorts of
implications - one of which relates to the objectivity of
reporting field observations.
I had a private enquiry for more info on the journal. It was
published 1976-1978. The editor/publisher was a Brazilian
geologist Johan Kloosterman. Criteria for accepting manuscripts
were stated to be:
(a) does it study discontinuities in Earth history?
(b) does it clarify what catastrophist geology is all about?
(c) does it focus on subjects neglected or tabooed in the
mainstream geological journals?
It failed in 1988 - but no reason was given. I never got the
last issue (Volume 3, part 2) so if anyone can help me with that,
I'll be very pleased!
Glen >> I agree that different observers bring different concepts
to the table under different theories. But I am not sure they
bring different observations sensu strictu.<<
One of the tasks I am going to set myself as a result of this
exchange is to document more carefully the "facts are theory-
laden" thesis. Peter Chadwick's article provides a specific
example of this, I think. Then, it should be possible to
identify patterns in the diverging perspectives on 'what the
facts are'. I suspect a major reason is that observations are
not detailed enough, and people miss significant elements. Maybe
this is catching the same thought as your sensu strictu comment.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***