In followup to our recent EOS paper "How Geoscientists Think and Learn" (Kastens, Manduca, et al, 2009), Michael D. Max, of Marine Desalination Systems, wrote:
"In most scientific disciplines data is produced, analyzed and interpreted. Extrapolation beyond a data set is more or less forbidden. Geologists, on the other hand, are trained from the outset to understand that they almost never will have enough actual data to arrive at a useful solution except in the most closely controlled three dimensional situations such as mine and reservoir mapping. But this usually involves a level of cost that is only rarely obtainable."
I think this is an interesting point, that extrapolation beyond the last data point is more or less forbidden in science, but geologists do it anyway.
Historically, geoscientists have been taught to think mostly about the past. We were taught to think about the past through fossils, through fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field, though stable and radiometric isotopes, course after course on how to think about the past via various ingenious lines of reasoning.
In recent years, though, society has been asking the geoscience community to answer questions about the future, rather than about the past: what will happen to the climate? when will the next earthquake be? etc. To think about the future, by definition, requires making interpretations outside the bounds of the available data, which as Dr. Max noted, is something that many scientists shy away from.
What do we need to do to teach the next generation of geoscientists to be (a) comfortable and (b) competent at thinking rigorously about the future?
Reference:
-
Kastens, K. A., Manduca, C. A., Cervato, C., Frodeman, R., Goodwin, C., Liben, L. S., et al. (2009). How geoscientists think and learn. EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 90(31), 265-266. (download requires AGU membership)
Dave Mogk
Oct, 2009
Kim: Isn't it the case that post-diction (i.e. telling the story of the past history of the Earth) opens the door for prediction? If the Earth was capable of operating in some well-documented way in the past, why couldn't it do so again? Aren't we better off by knowing something about frequency and magnitude of Earth events like earthquakes, floods, extreme weather, etc. as an appropriate means to make plans to live on, and plan for dealing with, a restless Earth? Perhaps the issue lies in schools of thought that are primarily deterministic compared with much of Earth science which is probablistic.
1176:3584
Share
edittextuser=7 post_id=3584 initial_post_id=0 thread_id=1176
