Re: non-uniformitarianism?

Arthur V. Chadwick (chadwicka@swac.edu)
Thu, 19 Feb 1998 13:47:36 -0800

At 11:22 AM 2/19/98 -0800, Greg Billock wrote:
>
>I have a question about our recent Yellowstone-fossil-forest discussion.
>
>It seems to me, that, although the debate is framed by Art as being
>one of 'non-uniformitarian' explanation vs. 'uniformitarian,' that
>in reality two uniformitarian explanations are in competition--indeed,
>it is precisely the argument that the Specimen Ridge trees are similar
>to those near Mt. St. Helens that has helped to undermine the 'successive
>fossil forest' view of the site. In what way is uniformitarianism at
>stake here? Flood geologists may have argued against the successive-fossil-
>forests view, and may privately hold to some kind of catastrophism, but
>what has been presented is a uniformitarian argument. Where's the missing
>link here?

I don't think I framed it that way. I guess if by uniformitarian, you mean
methodological uniformitarinaism, both explanations are based upon that
(this would allow a Mt. St Helens or a naturalistic global diluvial
catastrophe). I think what was accomplished at Yellowstone speaks only to
the need to consider other explanations than those currently in vogue in
science when it comes to issues of historical geology. This has almost
nothing to do with conventional experimental science. The nature of
research in historical geology requires quite a different tentativeness
that that of, say physics or chemistry.
Art
http://chadwicka.swau.edu