>I know Arthur is perfectly capable of speaking for himself - but I
>nearly jumped in to support his [cited] comments, and Glenn's response
>provides even more of a stimulus.
Glad I can provide stimulus. :-)
>
>My field experience is not as extensive as Arthur's, but I have seen a
>good many rocks in the field and have heard excursion leaders talk about
>the rocks. The problem I find is that most geologists approach the
>interpretation of the rocks with a uniformitarian mindset: drawing on
>Hutton's rock cycle and Lyell's developments of it. The field data is
>squeezed into this framework. Whilst there is a growing awareness that
>non-uniformitarian processes can legitimately be invoked, there is very
>little change in the way geologists interpret depositional environments.
>Data is not absent that other explanations are feasible - but the general
>problem is that the "uniformitarian mind" does not know what to look for.
But what I find is that the diluvial catastrophist can't put as many
observations into a theoretical framework as can the actualist
(uniformitarianist). Since you, like Art, believe in a global flood also,
can you explain the carbonate data problem? If someone on your side could
place problems like this into a coherent theoretical framework, I for one
would probably move back towards you position. So while actualists may
approach the data with a theoretical framework in mind, as you and Art also
do, then why is it that we must always be told that we have to wait for the
solution to so many geological problems?
>In this situation, familiarity with field evidences AND an awareness of
>alternative paradigms of interpretation are, in my opinion, vital. I
>entirely concur with Arthur's comments.
You misunderstand what I was challenging. I didn't challenge the importance
or lack there of, of paradigms in interpretation. What I challenged was
Art's claim that one must always examine the original data. That is
impossible for anyone to do. Have you measured stellar parallax? You
probably believe that stars are far away but you haven't examined the
evidence PERSONALLY. We all have to take some things on the good faith and
offices of those who actually did the work.
>
>Glenn challenges this position with an example taken from counting varves.
>But the challenge is ineffective: to cite someone's description of
>research data is not to adopt their interpretation of that data.
No I didn't challeng the importance of paradigms. I challenged Art in his
claim that he always examined the data. If he didn't count Buchheim's
varves, then he has not personally examined the data anymore than I have.
Period.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm