The Myth Surrounding The Recognition Of The Missoula Floods

[Eclogite]

You may feel that I have an agenda. You would be right. I dislike seeing faulty interpretations of reality, whether these arise from ignorance, sloppiness, or biased argument. (Of these only the first is acceptable and not if, upon correction and illumination, the argument is repeated.)

 

What has got my goat on this occassion? It is another hip-shot from Paul aka qdogsman. Here is what he says in another thread, where he seeks to demonstrate that the science community actively suppresses ideas that run against current dogma. (By the way, that is such an important issue that we really cannot tolerate persons making the case with invalid, weak, twisted, corrupt examples.)

 

Paul had this to say:

 

There was a guy, forgive me again for forgetting his name, who spent virtually his entire adult life studying the barren landscape of central Washington state. He was convinced that the topography was formed by an enormous flood event. Again, the official science community gave him no support whatsoever and instead placed impediments in his way. It was only after satellites were able to provide pictures from a high vantage point that it could clearly be seen that indeed a giant flood had taken place and he had been right all along. Then the scientists belatedly entered this forbidden area of inquiry and figured out what had happened and how. (The bursting of a big ice dam near Missoula).

 

What did the official science community do in this regard?

 

1. Well, as far as I can determine, they financed him in the seven years of field work he conducted from 1922 to 1929.

2. They published his initial research in a 1923 paper. Bretz, J Harlen (1923). "The Channeled Scabland of the Columbia Plateau". Journal of Geology 31: 617–649

3. They published some of his his subsequent research in a 1925 paper. Bretz, J Harlen (1925). "The Spokane flood beyond the Channeled Scablands". Journal of Geology 33: 97–115, 236–259

4. The Journal of Geology is now and was then one of the premier Earth Science journals. If you wish to suppress and oppose an "upstart geologist" you do not give him audience access in such a journal.

5. The Geological Society of America (the US geological establishment)invited Bretz to present an overiew of his research in 1927 for consideration. This was seen by many, including Bretz, as an ambush. I see it as part of the rough and tumble of academic life. He had a radical idea. It was appropriate that such an idea should be rigorously examined. It was.

 

So, what support should the community have given him? He received funds to conduct his research; he was afforded extensive time to conduct it; he was given a voice in the Journal to explain his ideas, not once, but twice; rather than being ignored he was granted an audience to present his findings to the Geological Society of America. I can imagine many research geologists would kill for such a combination of opportunities. So, what do you assert was missing?

 

Sure, the establishment had the temerity to disagree wtih him. They had the knucklehead combination of obstinancy and stupdity to insist upon giving due care and attention to the mantra that had, almost alone, created the science of geology: The Present is the Key to the Past. /sarcasm.

 

Do you think scientists should automatically discard working, proven , validated principles just because someone comes along and disagrees? Or should they vigorously test those new hypothesis, while affording the opportunity for those new ideas to be explored?

 

You wish to speak, perhaps, on behalf of Bretz, yet you say this "the scientists belatedly entered this forbidden area of inquiry and figured out what had happened and how." Well, no. It was Bretz and Pardee, who was also at that 1927 meeting, who identified Missoula and accumulated the supporting evidence.

 

Was the establishment slow in coming to accept the hypothesis? Sure. TANSTAFFL. If you want to avoid endless wild goose chases and wasted effort you need to be vigorous and rigorous in your questioning of new ideas. That keeps the dross out, but the price you pay is that some of the gems take a while to be cut and mounted. I am more than willing to pay that price. How about you?

[Qdogsman]

Eclogite,

 

Thank you for taking the time to respond so completely to what appears to be a comment of mine based on ignorance and sloppiness (there was no component of biased argument because I am not biased against science in the slightest).

 

You may feel that I have an agenda. You would be right. I dislike seeing faulty interpretations of reality, whether these arise from ignorance, sloppiness, or biased argument. (Of these only the first is acceptable and not if, upon correction and illumination, the argument is repeated.)

 

What has got my goat on this occassion? It is another hip-shot from Paul aka qdogsman. Here is what he says in another thread, where he seeks to demonstrate that the science community actively suppresses ideas that run against current dogma. (By the way, that is such an important issue that we really cannot tolerate persons making the case with invalid, weak, twisted, corrupt examples.)

 

Paul had this to say:

 

There was a guy, forgive me again for forgetting his name, who spent virtually his entire adult life studying the barren landscape of central Washington state. He was convinced that the topography was formed by an enormous flood event. Again, the official science community gave him no support whatsoever and instead placed impediments in his way. It was only after satellites were able to provide pictures from a high vantage point that it could clearly be seen that indeed a giant flood had taken place and he had been right all along. Then the scientists belatedly entered this forbidden area of inquiry and figured out what had happened and how. (The bursting of a big ice dam near Missoula).

 

What did the official science community do in this regard?

 

1. Well, as far as I can determine, they financed him in the seven years of field work he conducted from 1922 to 1929.

2. They published his initial research in a 1923 paper. Bretz, J Harlen (1923). "The Channeled Scabland of the Columbia Plateau". Journal of Geology 31: 617–649

3. They published some of his his subsequent research in a 1925 paper. Bretz, J Harlen (1925). "The Spokane flood beyond the Channeled Scablands". Journal of Geology 33: 97–115, 236–259

4. The Journal of Geology is now and was then one of the premier Earth Science journals. If you wish to suppress and oppose an "upstart geologist" you do not give him audience access in such a journal.

5. The Geological Society of America (the US geological establishment)invited Bretz to present an overiew of his research in 1927 for consideration. This was seen by many, including Bretz, as an ambush. I see it as part of the rough and tumble of academic life. He had a radical idea. It was appropriate that such an idea should be rigorously examined. It was.

 

I am not inclined to spend any time researching the facts to try to defend what I wrote. I could be completely wrong, as you claim. My total knowledge is based on a single visit to the tourist attraction at Dry Falls, watching a movie there, and listening to the rangers tell the story. Since the story they told seemed to me to be another example of the problem I was trying to illustrate with my 5 examples, I included it.

 

Evidently I was wrong. I apologize and retract that example from my list.

 

In order to keep my number at 5, and to keep within the discipline of Geology, I might suggest substituting the story of "The Map that Changed the World", a wonderful book written by Simon Winchester. This story is an example of the criticism I tried to back up with my 5 examples. Of course in the case of William Smith, whose story is told in that book, this took place in Britain many years ago and it was the British Royal Society who treated him so shabbily, not the Geological Society of America. (Incidentally, the book makes the case that, rather than a mantra, William Smith "almost alone, created the science of Geology".)

 

I'm not sure how to correct my error in the other thread. Will this retraction and apology suffice? Or should I post a mention in the other thread?

 

You wish to speak, perhaps, on behalf of Bretz, yet you say this "the scientists belatedly entered this forbidden area of inquiry and figured out what had happened and how." Well, no. It was Bretz and Pardee, who was also at that 1927 meeting, who identified Missoula and accumulated the supporting evidence.

 

Yes, I think I was speaking on behalf of Bretz. My visit to Dry Falls was a long time ago and my memory of it is vague, but the name 'Bretz' does have a familiar ring. My recollection is that Bretz was more-or-less the hero in the story related to me, and if he had to do the work to identify Missoula, then it adds weight to my old erroneous interpretation. It only means that the official Geological Society took longer than I thought to finally accept the idea.

 

Was the establishment slow in coming to accept the hypothesis? Sure. TANSTAFFL. If you want to avoid endless wild goose chases and wasted effort you need to be vigorous and rigorous in your questioning of new ideas. That keeps the dross out, but the price you pay is that some of the gems take a while to be cut and mounted. I am more than willing to pay that price. How about you?

 

Of course there should be a balance. Crackpots need to be held at bay, but new ideas and approaches should not be religiously excluded either. I think that by occasionally highlighting egregious cases, like I tried to do with my list of 5, it might help keep things in balance.

 

So what about my four other examples? Were they OK?

 

Paul Martin

Qdogsman