Talk:Catastrophism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Catastrophism article.
Article policies
Earth sciences Portal
Catastrophism is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] snowball earth

What about the "Snowball Earth" theory? That comes from real scientists... does it qualify?

Also read Asteroid impact if you think that such events are unlikely.

I've always associated this theory with Cuvier, but neither this article nor the article on him make the association. Am I just wrong?(unsigned)

Omission corrected. Vsmith 01:07, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added an entire new subsection to more correctly present the views of Cuvier and of the English natural theologians of the early 19th century. Rusty Cashman 23:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] floods

Actually, the Missoula Floods seem a good example of a much earlier discovery contrary to uniformitarianism though not one with global reprecussions. - KarlHallowell 17:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

Was the Palmer book used as a reference for writing this or listed as a further source? Also, what is the ISBN? I don't find that title on Amazon or bookfinder.com. Do find two later books by Palmer (1999 and 2003). Vsmith 23:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ackerman/velikovsky

I removed what appears to be a promotional bit about books published by a vanity press. An attempt to revive the velikovsky cruft. Vsmith 00:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pernicious nonsense

I've removed it again. It was online long enough for a blog to latch onto it and use it to bash Wikipedia: http://johnmckay.blogspot.com/2006/10/object-lesson-in-wiki-research-this.html It was inserted by nearly identical anon IP addresses.

Hu 15:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It keeps getting re-added by a vigilant and non-communicative anon. -- Stbalbach 16:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A.H. Delsemme

We should add references to A.H. Delsemme's book, "Our Cosmic Origins", which gives a very thorough analysis of the various "catastrophes" which paved the way to life: Jupiter disrupting planetoids early in the Solar System's formation, Earth's collision with a Mars-sized planetoid (formation of the moon and destruction of Earth's initial CO2-rich atmosphere), later cometary bombardment of Earth (which enriched Earth's "new" atmosphere), various discussions on fundamental chemical reactions and elements abundance, etc. The author does not advocate panspermia. Rather, he tries to isolate the various events which helped life emerge. All in all, a very interesting book. -- Hugo Dufort 10:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UNIFORMITARIANISM vs GRADUALISM

Am confused. Always thought that Uniformitarianism was, basically, same natural laws + same processes = same results. So, while I agree that Uniformitarianism may imply Gradualism, how does it require Gradualism?

````David Tisdale

Uniformitarianism is a term that is used a couple of different ways in science. Historically in geology it has been associated with the views advocated by Charles Lyell that the geological features of the earth could be explained by the long term action of forces that can still be observed in action in the present day. This view was put forward in direct opposition to the idea that the earth had been shaped by catastrophic (and possibly supernatural) events in its past. As the article makes clear this view advocated by Lyell is really a combination of uniformitarianism (using the philosophy of science defintion you use) and the assumption of gradualism. Even if this usage is not entirely consistent with the modern definitions it is still appropriate for this article, as the 2 labels (uniformitariansim and catastrophism) for these viewpoints are widely known, and the debate between them was historically very important in the development of the earth sciences.Rusty Cashman 19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, in germanspeaking countries it is common to oppose gradualism to catastrophism as theories about the history of the earth (smoothe and slow vs. quick and dirty), while uniformitarianism ("Aktualismus") is rather seen as a method or an axiom of geological investigation. Hereby "Aktualismus" is opposed to "Ekzeptionalismus" (the view, that there may have existed processes in the past, which do not happen today anymore (like the formation of Banded Iron Formations), or in the extreme case: that the laws of nature may have changed during the course of time (like the change of the gravitational constant, proposed by Paul Dirac). I wonder if there is any term like "exceptionalism" in english? Greets Geoz (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Einstein bit

The part about Immanuel Velikovsky that says "Not all scientists however shared this viewpoint, and Albert Einstein remained a close friend of Velikovsky's until his death." needs a source. Gedfan (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have provided several sources for the entire paragraph, and made it clear that while Einstein may have been his friend he carefully avoided endorsing most of his ideas.Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sedimentology research

The study cited - or at least the publicity blurbs, haven't seen the Science article - says nothing about catastrophism.

===Recent developments regarding formation of geological landscapes ===
The longstanding understanding of how the "sedimentary geological record" was formed is being challenged as being in error, according to research by geologists at Indiana University (Bloomington) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The research, which appears in the December 14th edition of Science, counters the prevailing uniformitarian view of geologists that mud only settles when water is placid, instead showing that "muds will accumulate even when currents move swiftly."[1]
What is most interesting for students of the geological and fossil record is how this research potentially overturns the previous view on mudstone deposition, erosion, and re-deposition, as the press release outlines:

"The finding feels like something of a vindication, Schieber says. He and his colleagues have (genially) argued about whether muds could deposit from rapidly flowing water. Schieber had posited the possibility after noting an apparent oddity in the sedimentary rock record."[2]

Schieber noted that, "In many ancient mudstones, you see not only deposition, but also erosion and rapid re-deposition of mud - all in the same place... The erosive features are at odds with the notion that the waters must have been still all or most of the time. We needed a better explanation."[3]

Simply does not belong in the article. Seems to be synthesis or original research to make that jump. It is simply a study of sedimentological processes, a refinement of scientific understanding. Vsmith (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It actually does belong in the article, as it does indeed deal with "Catastrophism re-emerging and re-examined by science". Perhaps the confusion lies in the wording of the subhead title, so I've retitled that.

And it's not OR, as it simply reports what the Science article reports - which is about the challenge to catastrophism. Goo2you (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

claiming that it is "supporting catastrophism" as your section title does, is blatant (and fallacious) WP:OR. HrafnTalkStalk 14:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
No it's not, any more than claiming the "Luis Alvarez impact event hypothesis" or "Moon-formation" entries support "Catastrophism re-emerging and re-examined by science" is WP:OR. Please be reasonable here. Goo2you (talk 15:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
You have not established even the slightest connection between the cited article and catastrophism, let alone support from it for catastrophism. It is you who is being unreasonable here. HrafnTalkStalk 16:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC) In order to make your case, you must demonstrate, without resorting to WP:OR or WP:SYNTH that the cited article lends substantive support to catastrophism. HrafnTalkStalk 16:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully with this revision you will finally be satisfied that the connection exists, as established by multiple reliable sources, and no OR is occurring. Otherwise, someone might start to think that you own this article. Some friendly advice:

"If you find yourself warring with other contributors over deletions, reversions, and so on, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later... Since working on an article does not entitle you to "own" the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her..."

Perhaps the real issue here is that this challenge to uniformitarianism in the geologic record means that, as Macquaker and Bohacs infer, a huge tower of interpretation, touching on fields as diverse as climate change, earth history and even solar system dynamics, has been built on a flawed assumption: that mudstones always settled out slowly in calm water. Now that the assumption is shown to be unfounded, it is not just the geologists who will have to consider a paradigm shift. And paradigm shifts hurt. Goo2you (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Goo2you: the sentence you provided making the link between the article and catastrophism is pure WP:OR:"The longstanding view that the accumulations of the "sedimentary geological record" could not have been formed catastrophically, but instead were largely settled from slow-moving or still suspensions, is being challenged as being in error, according to research by geologists at Indiana University (Bloomington) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology." Not a single source (reliable or otherwise) making the linkage in sight. What part of "demonstrate, without resorting to WP:OR or WP:SYNTH that the cited article lends substantive support to catastrophism" did you fail to comprehend? As for your "friendly advice", it should not surprise you that I don't take advice as to my conduct from disruptive and tendentious editors. HrafnTalkStalk 01:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, the link between the article and catastrophism is established quite clearly within the cited article itself. What we are dealing with here appears to be a problem with WP:NPOV, not WP:OR, as evidence by your (now third) personal attack on me in this comment. Perhaps if you took a few days off, cooled off for a while, and maybe edited articles that you aren't so personally attached to and that tend to make you "more than a little irate" when you don't like another editors encyclopedic edits. Just a friendly suggestion. Goo2you (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Goo2you: needless to say I consider your assessment and your "suggestion" to be spurious and self-serving. Rather than continue to engage in a low-intensity edit-war with yourself, I have templated and tagged the disputed section. The specific statements that I am requesting direct quotes (preferably the entire paragraph, to ensure context) on, on this talkpage, to ensure that they are not WP:OR/WP:SYNTH are:

  • that the research in question "challanged as being in error" "The longstanding view that the accumulations of the 'sedimentary geological record' could not have been formed catastrophically"
  • that the research "counters the prevailing uniformitarian view of geologists"

Failure to substantiate these points, with aforementioned quotations, will result in the section being deleted again. HrafnTalkStalk 02:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a geologist and I read the Science paper in question when it came out. It is interesting work but NOT in any way supportive of "catastrophism" in the way portrayed in this article. In fact, because experimental evidence was used in the study to interpret parts of the rock record, it is by definition classic uniformitarianism. Now we know that muds can accumulate in fast-moving water -- this does not overthrow any paradigms of sedimentary geology. We've expanded what we know about sedimentation. Most fine-grained sediments can still be conclusively shown to have been deposited in slow-moving waters. This section should be removed from this article because it is simply not related to the topic. I'd do it myself, but I'm still very new to Wikipedia. I encourage someone else to do it right. Wilson44691 (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Wilson44691 -- I rather suspected that was the case, and have reverted the article on the basis of your comment. We seem to have a consensus here that the section does not belong in this article. I would therefore suggest that it should not be reintroduced without discussion that leads to a change of this consensus. HrafnTalkStalk 03:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that Goo2you is playing out the same argument on Uniformitarianism (science), with a similar consensus to reject it. HrafnTalkStalk 04:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC) And Sedimentology too -- he have been a busy boy. HrafnTalkStalk 04:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)