Pitman's disingenuousness, Bretz and the Scablands
John Stockwell
We have been regailed with another attempt by a creationist
to co-opt a legitimate scientific controversy into the
illegitmate world of creationist pseudoscience. This time
Sean Pitman (MD) has played the classic ploy of attempting to
claim J. Harlan Bretz as a partisan.
Bretz was the geologist who proposed and successfully championed
the giant flood theory of the origin of the Channeled Scablands,
that region of Washington state characterized by channels and
"scabs" of soil covering the local basaltic lava flows.
Sean Pitman's personal "web of deceit":
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/harlenbretz.html
Pitman, in his ususal misinformed, and disingenous style, would have
us believe that global flood pseudoscience is somehow championed by
this account, or that the mainstream geological community is not
open to ideas.
A more accurate account, written by T.O. regular, geologist Andrew MacRae:
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/bretz_re.html
shows us that Bretz, himself, seemed to take a bit of time coming
to the view that the source of the water was Lake Missoula.
In his numerous reports Bretz rarely asked about a water source,
and then only in a brief sentence or two devoid of analysis. Bretz (1925)
thus suggested that the water might have originated by almost
instantaneous climatic melting of the Cordilleran icesheet, or perhaps
subglacial volcanism melted part of the icesheet. He supported neither
idea with theory or field evidence and even discounted the
climatic-melting notion."
"Not long after these brief speculations appear, J.T. Pardee writes Bretz
(3 June 1925) inquiring "whether you have considered the possibility of
the sudden draining of a glacial lake" to produce the water required for
an enormous "Spokane Flood?" Pardee is thinking of 500-mi^3 Pleistocene
glacial Lake Missoula in western Montana that he had identified and
described (Pardee, 1910). Bretz ignores Pardee. In a presentation in
Washington a year and a half later, Bretz (1927) repeats his previous two
suggestions, with which ensuing discussants are justly dissatisfied
As Andrew MacRae writes:
Bretz's hypothesis was not a titanic struggle between two
diametrically-opposed philosophies, it was an effort to test several
hypotheses, including Bretz's interpretation, against the evidence, over
many years, involving many scientists, and most of that debate took place
in the conventional scientific literature despite it supposedly being
"heretical". Bretz's ideas were "heretical" -- no question -- and there
was some philosophy entangled in the debate, but the effect that had was
small compared to the eventual effect of the evidence, and it did not stop
legitimate scientific consideration.
You will note from the list of Bretz's publications in the references portion
of Andrew MacRea's article, that Bretz had a run of papers in bonafide
journals on the subject. He was not prevented from publishing his materials,
by any means.
Bretz, J.H., 1923a. Glacial drainage on the Columbia Plateau. Geological
Society of America Bulletin, v.34, p.573-608.
--, 1923b. The Channeled Scabland of the Columbia Plateau. Journal of
Geology, v.31, p.617-649.
--, 1925. The Spokane flood beyond the Channeled Scablands. Jounral of
Geology, v.33, p.97-115, 236-259.
--, 1927. Channeled Scabland and the Spokane Flood. Journal of
Washington Academy of Sciences, v.18, p.200-211.
--, 1928a. Alternate hypotheses for channeled scabland. Journal of
Geology, v.36, p.193-223, 312-341.
--, 1928b. Bars of Channeled Scabland. Geological Society of America
Bulletin, v.39, p.643-702.
--, 1928c. The Channeld Scabland of eastern Washington. Geographical
Review, v.18, p.446-477.
--, 1929. Valley deposits immediately east of the Channeled Scabland of
Washington. Journal of Geology, v.37, p.393-427, 505-541.
--, 1930a. Lake Missoula and the Spokane Flood. Geological Society of
America Bulletin, v.41, p.92-93.
--, 1930b. Valley deposits immediately west of the channeled scabland.
Journal of Geology, v.38, p.385-422.
--, 1932. The Grand Coulee. American Geographical Society, Special
Publication 15, p.1-89.
Bretz, J.H.; Smith, H.T.U.; and Neff, G.E., 1956. Channeled Scabland of
Washington -- new data and interpretations. Geological Society of America
Bulletin, v.67, p.957-1049.
The short answer. Bretz had scientific data to support his position,
"flood geologists" do not.
John Stockwell | jo...@dix.Mines.EDU
Center for Wave Phenomena (The Home of Seismic Un*x)
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, CO 80401 | http://www.cwp.mines.edu/cwpcodes
voice: (303) 273-3049
Our book:
Norman Bleistein, Jack K. Cohen, John W. Stockwell Jr., [2001],
Mathematics of multidimensional seismic imaging, migration, and inversion,
(Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics, V. 13.), Springer-Verlag, New York.
Sean Pitman
> We have been regailed with another attempt by a creationist
> to co-opt a legitimate scientific controversy into the
> illegitmate world of creationist pseudoscience. This time
> Sean Pitman (MD) has played the classic ploy of attempting to
> claim J. Harlan Bretz as a partisan.
Just as an aside, it is my understanding that there is no period after
the J and that Harlen is spelled with an e, not an a.
> Bretz was the geologist who proposed and successfully championed
> the giant flood theory of the origin of the Channeled Scablands,
> that region of Washington state characterized by channels and
> "scabs" of soil covering the local basaltic lava flows.
>
> Sean Pitman's personal "web of deceit":
> http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/harlenbretz.html
>
> Pitman, in his ususal misinformed, and disingenous style, would have
> us believe that global flood pseudoscience is somehow championed by
> this account, or that the mainstream geological community is not
> open to ideas.
What I am pointing out by this story is that scientists are just as
human and just as prone to bias as anyone else. Their use of the
scientific method is not always or even usually done in a purely
rational or disinterested manner.
> A more accurate account, written by T.O. regular, geologist Andrew MacRae:
> http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/bretz_re.html
> shows us that Bretz, himself, seemed to take a bit of time coming
> to the view that the source of the water was Lake Missoula.
I also make careful note of this in my own paper. The fact of the
matter is that the weight of evidence was clearly in favor of a
catastrophic flood even without knowing the source for such a flood.
Even if lake Missoula was never discovered, the evidence for
catastrophic flooding of eastern Washington State would still be
overwhelmingly obvious to the candid mind. And yet, it is most
interesting that Bretz's observations and obvious conclusions were
openly scorned to ridicule until Pardee finally came along with
evidence for the source of such a massive amount of water. Really
though, the geologists opposing Bretz before this point were extremely
thick skulled in their evident inability to recognize flood geology
when they saw it - even without knowing the source or cause of such a
watery catastrophe. Requiring full knowledge as to the origin of a
catastrophe is just too much when the evidence of rapid watery deluge
was already so clearly evident.
> In his numerous reports Bretz rarely asked about a water source,
> and then only in a brief sentence or two devoid of analysis. Bretz (1925)
> thus suggested that the water might have originated by almost
> instantaneous climatic melting of the Cordilleran icesheet, or perhaps
> subglacial volcanism melted part of the icesheet. He supported neither
> idea with theory or field evidence and even discounted the
> climatic-melting notion."
Again, this is not the point. Bretz didn't need to know the source of
the flood waters in order to maintain the obvious position that the
scablands were clearly formed by a rapid catastrophic watery deluge of
magnificent proportions. That is the whole point to the story. The
geologists of Bretz day simply refused to believe what the evidence
was obviously telling them until they discovered that the source of
the water was "local". Only then would they allow themselves to see
what had already been so obvious to those with a shred of an open mind
to what the evidence was so clearly saying.
> "Not long after these brief speculations appear, J.T. Pardee writes Bretz
> (3 June 1925) inquiring "whether you have considered the possibility of
> the sudden draining of a glacial lake" to produce the water required for
> an enormous "Spokane Flood?" Pardee is thinking of 500-mi^3 Pleistocene
> glacial Lake Missoula in western Montana that he had identified and
> described (Pardee, 1910). Bretz ignores Pardee. In a presentation in
> Washington a year and a half later, Bretz (1927) repeats his previous two
> suggestions, with which ensuing discussants are justly dissatisfied
Yet again, the discussants were not "justly" dissatisfied at all since
the evidence for a huge deluge was clearly evident from the data
gathered by Bretz even without knowing anything at all about the
source or cause of this deluge.
> As Andrew MacRae writes:
>
> Bretz's hypothesis was not a titanic struggle between two
> diametrically-opposed philosophies, it was an effort to test several
> hypotheses, including Bretz's interpretation, against the evidence, over
> many years, involving many scientists, and most of that debate took place
> in the conventional scientific literature despite it supposedly being
> "heretical". Bretz's ideas were "heretical" -- no question -- and there
> was some philosophy entangled in the debate, but the effect that had was
> small compared to the eventual effect of the evidence, and it did not stop
> legitimate scientific consideration.
Actually the very strong uniformitarian bias did in fact stop
legitimate scientific consideration. It stopped it, not just for a
few years, but *decades*! Despite otherwise overwhelming evidence,
Bretz was laughed to scorn for proposing that a rapid catastrophic
deluge created the scablands when every sane person knew that such
features required million of years of uniformitarian processes. As
already pointed out, it was not until Pardee came on the scene and
presented more overwhelming evidence for the source of a local deluge
(Lake Missoula) that Bretz was ever recognized for his work.
> You will note from the list of Bretz's publications in the references portion
> of Andrew MacRea's article, that Bretz had a run of papers in bonafide
> journals on the subject. He was not prevented from publishing his materials,
> by any means.
Notice that Bretz started publishing in 1923 and then stopped just 10
years later in 1932. Do you think this is because Bretz had convinced
everyone or run out of data or arguments by 1932? Think again. Note
that it wasn't until 1956 that Bretz published again. This was 16
years after Pardee had first presented conclusive evidence for Lake
Missoula being the source of Bretz's floods.
One more time: Bretz had overwhelming data to support his position
even before the source of his proposed deluge was discovered. Most
likely, if Pardee hadn't come along and if Lake Missoula had not been
identified as the source for Bretz's flood, geologists would still be
claiming that the scablands took millions of years to form. How
"disingenuous" is that? The tenacity, which even well educated
scientists will hang onto clearly falsified notions in the face of
otherwise overwhelming evidence, is simply amazing.
This story should cause those who put too much faith in authorities of
any kind to think again and do just a little bit of reading and/or
investigating on all sides of the issue in question before taking too
strong of a stand on one side or the other. If the claims of experts
just don't seem to add up for you, then you may actually be onto
something. Most of the time they are no more clever or free from bias
than you are. So, don't be afraid to go it alone in the face of
strong opposition, like Bretz certainly did, when you simply see
something as being clearly different from what others, even the
majority of "intellectuals and scholars - and even John Stockwell",
claim to have seen.
> John Stockwell | jo...@dix.Mines.EDU
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
R. Baldwin
news:80d0c26f.04070...@posting.google.com...
Sean, you exaggerate the duration of the controversy. The watershed year in
ending the controversy was 1940, not 1956. See
http://gsahist.org/gsat2/pardee.htm
Note that many of the geologists in the 1920's and 1930's lived on the east
coast and did not have ready access to the Channeled Scablands. Their
skepticism for a colossal jokulhaups of the like never before observed, with
no proposed source of water, was entirely reasonable - especially given the
amount of effort required in field work to corroborate the idea.
MurphyInOhio
>to co-opt a legitimate scientific controversy into the
>John
Our marginally literate evolutionist conveniently forgets that for many years
Evolutionism hotly denied catastrophe, and relied on slow, gradual change. Now
seen that there is no denying a time of great deluge, the true believers in
evolutionism still seek to delimit its reach...in vain.
Zachriel
"Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:80d0c26f.04070...@posting.google.com...
So what you are saying is that Bretz introduced a hypothesis, one that even
he took a while to come to. That this hypothesis made certain tacit
predictions, in particular, that the water had to come from somewhere. That
when this source of water was discovered it was considered validation of the
hypothesis. Other observations reinforced the hypothesis and eventually the
hypothesis was accepted as one of the many facts of geology. Bretz was
rewarded for his efforts and persistence by the accolades of his peers.
Let's see: initial observations, then hypothesis, prediction, observation,
validation, repeat. It's all there. Your complaint seems to be only that
there is a wide gap between the various components of the scientific method.
This is not unusual, by the way. Some people spend their whole lives on just
the first step; others spend their whole lives on one of the others. The
Middle Ages is often considered centuries of "initial observations" as
Medieval scholars cataloged facts about the universe around them without a
valid method of generalization to help them understand and extrapolate from
those facts. Einstein's theories are still subject to validation a century
after their publication. The Cassini Project will have taken a professional
lifetime to complete its observations. Meanwhile, obstanancy,
boneheadedness, stubborness and insularity are common features in humanity.
Expecting otherwise, even from scientists, would be an exercise in futility.
That's why we have refined a method for separating the wheat from the
chaff--the scientific method.
Galileo says heavy stones and light stones fall at the same rate, well, it
can be independently verified. Geologists map the the geologic
column--verifiable even by amateurs. Fossils forming a nested hierarchy in
those strata, verified repeatedly. A mechanism for heredity and mutation of
genes, discovered 1953.
http://www.nature.com/genomics/human/watson-crick/
In any case, from what I understand, Bretz never claimed a global flood,
indeed, that would be contrary to his hypothesis. As you chose Bretz as your
champion, that would appear to settle the matter.
Harry K
> "Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
> news:80d0c26f.04070...@posting.google.com...
> > John Stockwell <jo...@dix.Mines.EDU> wrote in message
> news:<Pine.LNX.4.58.04...@wenzel.Mines.EDU
Delurk for a question here. Apologize for sorta OT.
I live right near the channeled scablands - even ran level lines for
the Geo Survey through a short length of it back in 1977. In my
omniverous reading somewhere I recall seeing that the theory wasn't
really accepted until aerial survey got observers up high enough to
really see the ripple formations because they were so out-sized.
True?
Harry K
Sean Pitman
> Sean, you exaggerate the duration of the controversy. The watershed year in
> ending the controversy was 1940, not 1956. See
> http://gsahist.org/gsat2/pardee.htm
If you will notice, I already pointed out that Pardee presented the
evidence for the Lake Missoula flood in 1940. If you had read my paper
more than superficially you would have noticed that I used the very
same reference that you use here. Notice that, according to the paper
you list here, Pardee did not link this Missoula flood to the creation
of the scablands. The very same paper that you reference suggests
that, "Pardee (1942) did not state the connection to the Channeled
Scabland. Perhaps he generously left that point to Bretz."
It was still more than a decade later, in the mid to late 1950s, that
the link between the Missoula Flood and the scablands was made and
became generally accepted.
"In the summer of 1952, Bretz, then nearly 70 years old, returned
for his last summer of fieldwork in the Channeled Scabland. The
purpose was to investigate new data that had been obtained in surveys
for the Bureau of Reclamation's Columbia Basin project. H. T. U. Smith
accompanied him, acting in the field as "skeptic for all
identifications and interpretations" (Bretz et al., 1956, p. 761).
George E. Neff of the Bureau of Reclamation pointed out many new
exposures of flood sediments.
His recognition [Pardee's] of the giant current ripples of Lake
Missoula was followed by the documentation of 15 scabland ripple
fields by Bretz et al. (1956) and nearly 100 by Baker (1973) and Baker
and Nummedal (1978). The hydraulics of the cataclysmic flows have
proven to be physically consistent with the various geomorphological
field evidence (e.g., O'Connor and Baker, 1992)."
> Note that many of the geologists in the 1920's and 1930's lived on the east
> coast and did not have ready access to the Channeled Scablands. Their
> skepticism for a colossal jokulhaups of the like never before observed, with
> no proposed source of water, was entirely reasonable - especially given the
> amount of effort required in field work to corroborate the idea.
It was not reasonable to hold a uniformitarian position requiring
millions of years of time to create the scablands if they had no
actual field evidence to contradict Bretz and his direct observations.
What they should have said is that if Bretz's observations were in
fact correct as stated, then they would present a significant problem
for the uniformitarian paradigm. Further personal investigation
should have quickly followed, well before the passing of decades of
time at least. Certainly such strong attacks against Bretz's ideas
over the course of decades were quite extraordinary in light of the
evidence that he was presenting - especially since no one else had any
direct personal or even second-hand evidence to counter the evidence
presented by Bretz.
Gregwrld
> news:80d0c26f.04070...@posting.google.com...
> > John Stockwell <jo...@dix.Mines.EDU> wrote in message
> news:<Pine.LNX.4.58.04...@wenzel.Mines.EDU>...
> >
<snip>
Stockwell | jo...@dix.Mines.EDU
> >
> > Sean Pitman
> > www.DetectingDesign.com
> >
>
> Sean, you exaggerate the duration of the controversy. The watershed year in
> ending the controversy was 1940, not 1956. See
> http://gsahist.org/gsat2/pardee.htm
>
> Note that many of the geologists in the 1920's and 1930's lived on the east
> coast and did not have ready access to the Channeled Scablands. Their
> skepticism for a colossal jokulhaups of the like never before observed, with
> no proposed source of water, was entirely reasonable - especially given the
> amount of effort required in field work to corroborate the idea.
It seem reasonable to point out here that the scientific process was
the winner in the end. The arguments may have been vitriolic at times
and Bretz surely took some abuse but they were no more strenuous than
the arguments against plate tectonics and continental drift. Note also
that mainstream scientists took a conservative view of the evidence
and waited until it was solid and that is no different than their view
of TOE. Its what we should expect.
Greg Czebatol
Gregwrld
John Stockwell
>John Stockwell <jo...@dix.Mines.EDU> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.58.04...@wenzel.Mines.EDU>...
>>
>> us believe that global flood pseudoscience is somehow championed by
>> this account, or that the mainstream geological community is not
>> open to ideas.
>
>What I am pointing out by this story is that scientists are just as
>human and just as prone to bias as anyone else. Their use of the
>scientific method is not always or even usually done in a purely
>rational or disinterested manner.
Nice try, Sean, but you really cannot cover your tracks that easily.
Basically, your first intent by this piece is to suggest to the uninformed that
the scientific community treated Bretz unfairly, and by doing so imply
that the community is treating your young-earth-global-floodites unfairly,
today, as well.
However, Bretz definitely was *not* treated unfairly. His articles were not
suppressed, and eventually the mainstream scientific community accepted
his ideas. That scientists play hardball should be respected, not denigrated.
It is the way the game is played.
Your second intent in writing this piece is an attempt to misdirect the
attention of the reader from the fact that the Channeled Scablands are
extremely stong evidence *against* the notion of a worldwide
flood that anybody can see. The CS is what big floods do. The Earth's surface
does not, in general, appear to be like the CS. Indeed, it looks very
different.
>> A more accurate account, written by T.O. regular, geologist Andrew MacRae:
>> http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/bretz_re.html
>> shows us that Bretz, himself, seemed to take a bit of time coming
>> to the view that the source of the water was Lake Missoula.
>
>I also make careful note of this in my own paper. The fact of the
>matter is that the weight of evidence was clearly in favor of a
>catastrophic flood even without knowing the source for such a flood.
>Even if lake Missoula was never discovered, the evidence for
>catastrophic flooding of eastern Washington State would still be
>overwhelmingly obvious to the candid mind. And yet, it is most
>interesting that Bretz's observations and obvious conclusions were
>openly scorned to ridicule until Pardee finally came along with
>evidence for the source of such a massive amount of water.
Sorry, Sean, but science requires more than jumping to conclusions. It was
equally possible, considering the knowledge of geology that existed
in the early part of the 20th century that glacial or normal erosion under
much greater precipitation rates could have been the cause.
Indeed, without the Lake Missoula flood source, or some other source
capable of delivering the necessary volume of water, it would *not* be
reasonable to conclude that a flood event was responsible. The point is,
that the notion of the flood *predicts* a flood source. It is up to
the scientist to track down that source. If it were shown that such a
source were not *possible*, then no matter how "floody" the local geology
may look to the investigator, the most that could be said is that
the erosion "looks like it could have been a flood". Nothing more could
be said without further information.
>Really
>though, the geologists opposing Bretz before this point were extremely
>thick skulled in their evident inability to recognize flood geology
>when they saw it - even without knowing the source or cause of such a
>watery catastrophe. Requiring full knowledge as to the origin of a
>catastrophe is just too much when the evidence of rapid watery deluge
>was already so clearly evident.
The problem, Sean, is that there aren't a whole bunch of Channeled Scablands
for us to look at (On Earth. Mars seems to be another story.). So, no
the feature is unique. All of the other "flood geology" is at a scale that
is much smaller than the CS.
>> "Not long after these brief speculations appear, J.T. Pardee writes Bretz
>> (3 June 1925) inquiring "whether you have considered the possibility of
>> the sudden draining of a glacial lake" to produce the water required for
>> an enormous "Spokane Flood?" Pardee is thinking of 500-mi^3 Pleistocene
>> glacial Lake Missoula in western Montana that he had identified and
>> described (Pardee, 1910). Bretz ignores Pardee. In a presentation in
>> Washington a year and a half later, Bretz (1927) repeats his previous two
>> suggestions, with which ensuing discussants are justly dissatisfied
>
>Yet again, the discussants were not "justly" dissatisfied at all since
>the evidence for a huge deluge was clearly evident from the data
>gathered by Bretz even without knowing anything at all about the
>source or cause of this deluge.
Of course they were "justly dissatisfied"! This was 1910. They didn't
know as much as we do today. Bretz blew it. He had Pardee's mechanism
in hand and he didn't adopt it for 30 years!
>> As Andrew MacRae writes:
>>
>> Bretz's hypothesis was not a titanic struggle between two
>> diametrically-opposed philosophies, it was an effort to test several
>> hypotheses, including Bretz's interpretation, against the evidence, over
>> many years, involving many scientists, and most of that debate took place
>> in the conventional scientific literature despite it supposedly being
>> "heretical". Bretz's ideas were "heretical" -- no question -- and there
>> was some philosophy entangled in the debate, but the effect that had was
>> small compared to the eventual effect of the evidence, and it did not stop
>> legitimate scientific consideration.
>
>Actually the very strong uniformitarian bias did in fact stop
>legitimate scientific consideration. It stopped it, not just for a
>few years, but *decades*!
So what? The science had to advance sufficiently for the idea to be
accepted. Bretz' work was published, his ideas were eventually accepted.
Geology is not practised the same today as it was in 1910. The field
has grown up a lot since then, and is really taking its place among
the quantitative physical sciences. It is not just rock-hammer and
hand-lens descriptive stuff anymore.
>Despite otherwise overwhelming evidence,
>Bretz was laughed to scorn for proposing that a rapid catastrophic
>deluge created the scablands when every sane person knew that such
>features required million of years of uniformitarian processes. As
>already pointed out, it was not until Pardee came on the scene and
>presented more overwhelming evidence for the source of a local deluge
>(Lake Missoula) that Bretz was ever recognized for his work.
Yes. That is the way science operates. Deal with it. Science is conservative,
but scientists do change their ideas when sufficient evidence is presented.
That is the way the game is played. You can rant with 20/20 hindsight,
but the ideas and responses Bretz received were reasonable for the time.
>
>> You will note from the list of Bretz's publications in the references portion
>> of Andrew MacRea's article, that Bretz had a run of papers in bonafide
>> journals on the subject. He was not prevented from publishing his materials,
>> by any means.
>
>Notice that Bretz started publishing in 1923 and then stopped just 10
>years later in 1932. Do you think this is because Bretz had convinced
>everyone or run out of data or arguments by 1932? Think again. Note
>that it wasn't until 1956 that Bretz published again. This was 16
>years after Pardee had first presented conclusive evidence for Lake
>Missoula being the source of Bretz's floods.
Basically Bretz shot his wad on his topic, and went on to other things.
The 1956 publication pretty much put the matter to bed. This is hardly
an example of either bad science or unfair treatment. Indeed, that
Bretz and his colleagues were publishing this monograph is pretty
much the most you can hope for. You do research for a period of time,
and then publish a monograph of your work through your professional
society.
>>
>> The short answer. Bretz had scientific data to support his position,
>> "flood geologists" do not.
>
>One more time: Bretz had overwhelming data to support his position
>even before the source of his proposed deluge was discovered.
No he didn't! If you had been there, believing as you do today, you
would have been claiming the CS as evidence of Noah's flood.
>Most
>likely, if Pardee hadn't come along and if Lake Missoula had not been
>identified as the source for Bretz's flood, geologists would still be
>claiming that the scablands took millions of years to form. How
>"disingenuous" is that? The tenacity, which even well educated
>scientists will hang onto clearly falsified notions in the face of
>otherwise overwhelming evidence, is simply amazing.
Nonsense. Lake Missoula was there for anybody to see. If it wasn't Pardee,
it would have been somebody else. It might have even been Bretz, himself.
>
>This story should cause those who put too much faith in authorities of
>any kind to think again and do just a little bit of reading and/or
>investigating on all sides of the issue in question before taking too
>strong of a stand on one side or the other. If the claims of experts
>just don't seem to add up for you, then you may actually be onto
>something. Most of the time they are no more clever or free from bias
>than you are. So, don't be afraid to go it alone in the face of
>strong opposition, like Bretz certainly did, when you simply see
>something as being clearly different from what others, even the
>majority of "intellectuals and scholars - and even John Stockwell",
>claim to have seen.
Hindsight is 20/20, particularly if you are propagandist like
Sean (the creationist Michael Moore) Pitman. To back up the claim
that there was anything particularly wrong in the Bretz situation is
going to take more evidence than you have presented.
What we see in the Bretz affair, is a example of a scientist who proposed
an extraordinary theory to explain a phenomenon. Predictions were made by
his theory that were later bourne out by further investigation. Eventually
that scientist wrote the definitive work on the subject, and was given the
appropriate accolades in his later life. Indeed, the participation of that
scientist led in part to a change in the way his field operated. What better
testimony supporting mainstream science could there be?
R. Tang
John Stockwell <jo...@dix.Mines.EDU> wrote:
>>>Pitman wrote:
>>John Stockwell <jo...@dix.Mines.EDU> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.58.04...@wenzel.Mines.EDU>...
>>>
>>> Pitman, in his ususal misinformed, and disingenous style, would have
>>> us believe that global flood pseudoscience is somehow championed by
>>> this account, or that the mainstream geological community is not
>>> open to ideas.
>>
>>What I am pointing out by this story is that scientists are just as
>>human and just as prone to bias as anyone else. Their use of the
>>scientific method is not always or even usually done in a purely
>>rational or disinterested manner.
>
>Nice try, Sean, but you really cannot cover your tracks that easily.
>
>Basically, your first intent by this piece is to suggest to the uninformed that
>the scientific community treated Bretz unfairly, and by doing so imply
>that the community is treating your young-earth-global-floodites unfairly,
>today, as well.
>
>However, Bretz definitely was *not* treated unfairly. His articles were not
>suppressed, and eventually the mainstream scientific community accepted
>his ideas. That scientists play hardball should be respected, not denigrated.
>It is the way the game is played.
I will suggest that Mr. Pittman, like many other Creationists,
simply cannot accept that "playing hardball" is a natural way of life,
particularly among the elite. It comes from their mindset that knowledge
is revealed and handed down from on high, in a top-down process.
That's not how it's done in science. It's not how it's done in
business. It's not how it's done in sports. You have to prove yourself on
a daily basis...and it's a rough, bruising process THAT'S PERFECTLY
NORMAL.
It's just that Pittman and his ilk are too soft to tolerate this
themselves, so they decry it...particularly when it's applied to them.
--
-
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new]
- http://www.aatrevue.com
syvanen
> news:80d0c26f.04070...@posting.google.com...
> > John Stockwell <jo...@dix.Mines.EDU> wrote in message
> news:<Pine.LNX.4.58.04...@wenzel.Mines.EDU>...
> >
> >
> > This story should cause those who put too much faith in authorities of
> > any kind to think again and do just a little bit of reading and/or
> > investigating on all sides of the issue in question before taking too
> > strong of a stand on one side or the other. If the claims of experts
> > just don't seem to add up for you, then you may actually be onto
> > something. Most of the time they are no more clever or free from bias
> > than you are. So, don't be afraid to go it alone in the face of
> > strong opposition, like Bretz certainly did, when you simply see
> > something as being clearly different from what others, even the
> > majority of "intellectuals and scholars - and even John Stockwell",
> > claim to have seen.
> >
> > > John Stockwell | jo...@dix.Mines.EDU
> >
> > Sean Pitman
> > www.DetectingDesign.com
> >
>
> Sean, you exaggerate the duration of the controversy. The watershed year in
> ending the controversy was 1940, not 1956. See
> http://gsahist.org/gsat2/pardee.htm
>
> Note that many of the geologists in the 1920's and 1930's lived on the east
> coast and did not have ready access to the Channeled Scablands. Their
> skepticism for a colossal jokulhaups of the like never before observed, with
> no proposed source of water, was entirely reasonable - especially given the
> amount of effort required in field work to corroborate the idea.
But we have to accept that these east coast geologists were so guided
by the idea of gradualism that they were unable to even see the
observations Bretz was presenting. These are the same people who were
unable to see the data which supported continental drift theory.
Their refusal to accept the Bretz floods until the source of water was
found is similar to their refusal to accept continental drift until
the mechanism of plate tectonics was discovered. Sean has a point
that current theory can place tremendous restrictions upon
observation. Of course, it should also be noted that it wasn't the
Noah's flood advocates (now wouldn't that be something) that uncovered
the Bretz floods but it was scientists who are members of that large
community that has proven life has existed on earth for more than 3
billion years.
Mike Syvanen
R. Baldwin
news:751f8d35.04070...@posting.google.com...
I haven't read this, but my readings on Bretz have been fairly limited. Do
you recall when the aerial survey might have been?
R. Baldwin
news:80d0c26f.04070...@posting.google.com...
> >
in
> > ending the controversy was 1940, not 1956. See
> > http://gsahist.org/gsat2/pardee.htm
>
> If you will notice, I already pointed out that Pardee presented the
> evidence for the Lake Missoula flood in 1940. If you had read my paper
> more than superficially you would have noticed that I used the very
> same reference that you use here. Notice that, according to the paper
> you list here, Pardee did not link this Missoula flood to the creation
> of the scablands. The very same paper that you reference suggests
> that, "Pardee (1942) did not state the connection to the Channeled
> Scabland. Perhaps he generously left that point to Bretz."
Actually, this source suggests Pardee started thinking about the link in the
1920's:
"Various correspondence in the 1920s led Bretz to believe (Bretz, 1978,
personal communication) that Pardee was actually considering flooding from a
glacial Lake Missoula as a cause for the scabland topography."
and "Pardee wrote to Bretz in 1925 suggesting that Bretz consider the
draining of a glacial lake as a possible source for the cataclysmic Spokane
Flood. In 1926 correspondence to J. C. Merriam, Bretz wrote: 'Mr. Pardee of
the Federal Survey, who has seen much of the scablands, has suggested that
his glacial Lake Missoula might have afforded the water for these enormous
rivers if it were suddenly drained out across the plateau. This comment
indicates tha[t] his former view of scablands by land ice and concomitant
subglacial drainage under ordinary climatic melting has been abandoned...'"
See also the quote: "I know where Bretz's Flood came from."
- J. T. Pardee, at a 1927 meeting of the Geologic Society in Washington DC
cited in http://www.nps.gov/iceagefloods/d.htm
>
> It was still more than a decade later, in the mid to late 1950s, that
> the link between the Missoula Flood and the scablands was made and
> became generally accepted.
The link was speculated by Pardee and suggested to Bretz before 1930. Bretz
did not publish it until 1956.
Hogwash. Since the uniformitarian position worked for all the evidence they
had ready access to up to that point, and since travel from the east coast
to eastern Washington for field study would be very expensive _and_ disrupt
their research already underway, it is natural that they would want more
than the partially worked out ideas of a single individual before expending
effort trying to corroborate. The onus was properly on Bretz, not his
colleagues.
>
> Sean
> www.DetectingDesign.com
>
Sean Pitman
You know John, I'm not arguing against science or the scientific
method here. I am arguing against the prevailing opinion that popular
scientists are somehow more than human and are therefore above letting
human passion get mixed up with their theories and ideas about what is
right and what is wrong. The story of J Harlen Bretz is a classic
illustration of this problem, a problem that just hasn't gone away and
probably never will go away. We all have to watch out for the bias
problem within ourselves.
Certainly, as you point out, we do have 20/20 hindsight vision today
when we look at Bretz's story. But, just imagine yourself having only
the information that Bretz had by the 1930s. Look at the topography
maps that he looked at and look only at the features that he observed,
and see if it is not strikingly obvious, just from what he saw then,
that a very large flood was indeed responsible - without even knowing
the source. Even Joseph Pardee, once he read Bretz's papers, was
convinced very early on that Bretz was right even though he had
previously written a paper supporting the theory that unusual
glaciation had carved out the scablands over millions of years.
Clearly the stubbornness and amazing blindness of Bretz's peers was
due to nothing more than a passionate unwillingness to accept that
sudden catastrophe, especially a sudden watery catastrophe, played any
sort of significant part in the geology of this planet.
The same thing is happening today. You yourself are accusing many
people of doing this very thing. You think that the evidence for
evolution and long ages of geological development are so obvious that
only the "ignorant, stupid, or insane" could possibly doubt the
validity of your position. Is this not so? But, do you stop to
question that maybe there just isn't enough evidence to be as
confident in your position as you obviously are? No, because it is so
obvious to you that you are in fact correct even though you don't have
all the evidence. The evidence that you do have is as clear and
overwhelming as the most confident truth that you know of in your life
- right?
Isn't it interesting then that when it has turned out that mainstream
science has been wrong many times in what was just as fervently
believed not just 70 or 80 years ago, but just 1 or 2 years ago, your
argument was and will be that, "They just didn't have enough
information yet, but they changed their minds when they did."
Now isn't that just fascinating? When those who disagree with you use
this very same argument, saying that there just isn't enough evidence
yet to convince them of evolution and millions of years of geologic
column, you throw up your hands in disgust and shocked disbelief.
Honestly, I'm doing the same thing when evolutionists, like you,
declare in all sincerity that they simply do not recognize what I
consider to be overwhelming evidence for a very rapid and catastrophic
formation of the geologic column and fossil record as well as
impossible statistical limits to biological evolution via mindless
evolutionary mechanisms.
I'm sure that each of us is wondering exactly the same thing at this
point. That is, "Just how much evidence does it take to convince a
mind like a brick wall?!" Certainly any brick wall can be beat down
with a big enough sledge hammer, but it is just so surprising to me
sometimes just HOW big that sledgehammer has to get before it seems to
make an impact on some people.
I'm sure that Bretz was feeling the very same way in his day. He
already had overwhelming evidence, way before the source for his flood
was found, to convince anyone who wasn't already steeped in and
blinded by uniformitarianist dogma that a huge flood was in fact
responsible for the scabland features. I'm sure that initially Bretz
thought he might get SOME resistance from those who were in support of
the "millions of years" theory for the scablands, but I think it came
as a great surprise to him just HOW stubborn his peers turned out to
be.
There was really no need for the degree of stubbornness and outright
distain that was expressed against Bretz and his "heresy". The
reasons were not based on dispassionate scientific carefulness,
conservatism, or a desire to sincerely consider all the angles. Not
at all. The reasons were pretty much based on a strong desire not to
be proved wrong in what had been so fervently declared and believed to
be true (a very human reaction to opposing ideas that we must all be
aware of in our own selves).
You, of course, argue that the science of geology has changed
significantly since the early and mid 1900s. And, I'm sure that it
has. But, I dare say that humans have not changed significantly.
Certainly scientists have not changed significantly. They are just as
prone to error and passion as they ever were in Bretz's day.
For example, how would you react if I told you that the Western Grand
Canyon is no longer thought by mainstream scientists to be 5.5 million
years old nor is it thought to have been carved out gradually, but
rather it is now claimed to have been carved out catastrophically over
a relatively short period of time (as little as 500,000 years)? Lava
dams, that, until very recently, were thought by many scientists to
have required tens to hundreds of thousands of years to erode slowly
away, are now believed by mainstream scientists, as recently as two or
three years ago, to have collapsed catastrophically within minutes.
Yes, you read correctly. The current claim is that these GC lava dams
collapsed within 50 to 80 minutes. Now, I would say that is just a
bit off of "tens or hundreds of thousands of years" - wouldn't you?
Such sudden collapses are know known to have released huge walls of
water that carved out large portions of the Western Grand Canyon
within a time span of only minutes to hours. Now, some are even
asking if that Grand Canyon isn't actually a "Geologic Infant?"
Ed Stiles, "Is the Grand Canyon a Geologic Infant?" The University of
Arizona News, OPI, July 18, 2002 (
http://uanews.opi.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/UANews.woa/1/wa/SRStoryDetails?ArticleID=5820&wosid=7RudwGAB7hQJYHvwohuzt0
)
Again, how could modern geologists have missed such evidence of
catastrophe as they viewed the Grand Canyon for all of these years?
Just look at the pictures. Not only the layers, but the formation of
the GC itself is so clearly catastrophic in nature. Especially look at
the satellite pictures of the region as well as other aerial
photographs and see if the sharp punched out look, steep sides, and
the very straight orientation of the Canyon are not much more
consistent with catastrophe on an almost unimaginable scale rather
than the long held belief that the relatively little Colorado River
carved out such features over millions of years. Many regions of the
GC even look a great deal like topography maps of various scabland
features, only on a larger scale.
Does this not make you stop and think, just a little bit, as to how
solid your position may actually be? Perhaps those like you are just
too knowledgeable to wonder about such things, but I know that there
are in fact others with a fair degree of intelligence as well as
knowledge and professional training in geology that are in fact doing
more than just considering that features like the Grand Canyon and
Monument Valley are actually monuments to magnificent catastrophe.
Certainly, as far as I have looked into this matter, it seems like the
evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of a rather recent and sudden
catastrophic model.
Again, for those who are interested, I present more detailed
discussions and pictures at:
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/geologiccolumn.html
Harlequin
news:80d0c26f.04070...@posting.google.com:
[snip]
> Again, this is not the point. Bretz didn't need to know the source of
> the flood waters in order to maintain the obvious position that the
> scablands were clearly formed by a rapid catastrophic watery deluge of
> magnificent proportions. That is the whole point to the story. The
> geologists of Bretz day simply refused to believe what the evidence
> was obviously telling them until they discovered that the source of
> the water was "local". Only then would they allow themselves to see
> what had already been so obvious to those with a shred of an open mind
> to what the evidence was so clearly saying.
[snip]
That the source water was "local" would have been obvious no matter
what. If it was global, then the who planet would look much
like what was found in the Scablands.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"...To deny that basic concepts of historical method with respect to
evolution is worse than just denying science; it is denying simple
common sense. Down that road lies only solipsism or schizophrenia,
neither of which can be used for examination of the outside world."
- Daniel Harper
Sean Pitman
> I will suggest that Mr. Pittman, like many other Creationists,
> simply cannot accept that "playing hardball" is a natural way of life,
> particularly among the elite. It comes from their mindset that knowledge
> is revealed and handed down from on high, in a top-down process.
I will suggest to you that there is just a bit of a difference from
"playing hardball" and being "hardheaded". The opponents of Bretz
clearly went far beyond playing hardball. They thought to play
hardball in the face of very clear evidence that Bretz was in fact
correct. Clearly, this story is one that demonstrates passionate
deliberate hardheadedness in an attempt to avoid admitting personal
error after many years of supporting a baseless position. It is a
story that shows how limiting a strong personal bias can be to the
finding of improved understanding.
> That's not how it's done in science. It's not how it's done in
> business. It's not how it's done in sports. You have to prove yourself on
> a daily basis...and it's a rough, bruising process THAT'S PERFECTLY
> NORMAL.
Is it perfectly "normal" and "good" to play "hardball" so long that
you actually hinder progress? At what point has resistance to a new
theory, in the face a significant weight of evidence, simply turned
from a desire for aggressive and clear demonstration to a hindrance
and a cog in the wheels of progress?
> It's just that Pittman and his ilk are too soft to tolerate this
> themselves, so they decry it...particularly when it's applied to them.
Come on now. If you really knew me or had followed my threads in this
forum for any length of time you would know that I don't mind playing
the hardball game at all. In fact, I really enjoy it. If I was soft
to it, especially when applied to me, then why would I keep coming
back for more? Certainly it is clear that I am in the distinct
minority in this particular forum. If anyone gets the majority of
hardballs thrown in their direction, that would be me. Also, anyone
who has made it through and succeeded in medical school and residency
as well as the Army will know what it is like to play hardball with
the big boys. You just will not survive if you aren't up for a good
game of hardball and very tough knocks. Obviously then, I'm not at all
opposed to a good game of hardball since I've been playing it my whole
life.
However, what I do "decry" is letting one's own personal bias and
cautious investigation of new or opposing ideas overcome their ability
to accept change before having to be hit on the head with a freight
train. Of course, sometimes that is what it appears to take for each
one of us to change. Really, it is impossible to change until one is
truly convinced of error regardless of how convincing the "evidence"
might be to someone else. It seems to me though, that if one is at
least aware of personal bias that this may help overcome some degree
of unnecessary resistance to change.
R. Tang
Sean Pitman <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
>gwan...@u.washington.edu (R. Tang) wrote in message news:<cc4jfp$ute$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu>...
>
>> I will suggest that Mr. Pittman, like many other Creationists,
>> simply cannot accept that "playing hardball" is a natural way of life,
>> particularly among the elite. It comes from their mindset that knowledge
>> is revealed and handed down from on high, in a top-down process.
>
>I will suggest to you that there is just a bit of a difference from
>"playing hardball" and being "hardheaded". The opponents of Bretz
>clearly went far beyond playing hardball. They thought to play
>hardball in the face of very clear evidence that Bretz was in fact
>correct. Clearly, this story is one that demonstrates passionate
>deliberate hardheadedness in an attempt to avoid admitting personal
>error after many years of supporting a baseless position. It is a
>story that shows how limiting a strong personal bias can be to the
>finding of improved understanding.
Sorry, but this is not clear at all. Given the time frame and the
much lower pace of publishing in the early and mid 20th Century (and not
to mention the advent of a Depression and a major global war), it is far
from clear that your conclusion is the best available one or even a viable
one.
>
>> That's not how it's done in science. It's not how it's done in
>> business. It's not how it's done in sports. You have to prove yourself on
>> a daily basis...and it's a rough, bruising process THAT'S PERFECTLY
>> NORMAL.
>
>Is it perfectly "normal" and "good" to play "hardball" so long that
>you actually hinder progress? At what point has resistance to a new
>theory, in the face a significant weight of evidence, simply turned
>from a desire for aggressive and clear demonstration to a hindrance
>and a cog in the wheels of progress?
It's at a point far beyond what you're positing here; you
overexagerate by far.
>
>> It's just that Pittman and his ilk are too soft to tolerate this
>> themselves, so they decry it...particularly when it's applied to them.
>
>Come on now. If you really knew me or had followed my threads in this
>forum for any length of time you would know that I don't mind playing
>the hardball game at all. In fact, I really enjoy it. If I was soft
>to it, especially when applied to me, then why would I keep coming
>back for more?
One may say that this is indeed a sign soft-headedness...
>Certainly it is clear that I am in the distinct
>minority in this particular forum. If anyone gets the majority of
>hardballs thrown in their direction, that would be me.
Not really. You're a distincly minor target on the group compared
to Ed, Murphy and other classics.
Also, anyone
>who has made it through and succeeded in medical school and residency
>as well as the Army will know what it is like to play hardball with
>the big boys. You just will not survive if you aren't up for a good
>game of hardball and very tough knocks. Obviously then, I'm not at all
>opposed to a good game of hardball since I've been playing it my whole
>life.
>
>However, what I do "decry" is letting one's own personal bias and
>cautious investigation of new or opposing ideas overcome their ability
>to accept change before having to be hit on the head with a freight
>train. Of course, sometimes that is what it appears to take for each
>one of us to change. Really, it is impossible to change until one is
>truly convinced of error regardless of how convincing the "evidence"
>might be to someone else. It seems to me though, that if one is at
>least aware of personal bias that this may help overcome some degree
>of unnecessary resistance to change.
Sean, what you don't seem to get is that a major change does
INDEED require a freight train's worth of evidence to change past
orthodoxy. And it should. It's a feature, not a bug.
Harry K
Sorry, I misspoke. I don't recall it as being an 'aerial survey' just
that the ripples became very obvious when viewed from the air. I can
attest that from the ground to the casual viewer (done that many
times) there is not much that shows ripples...too far apart. Been
scratching what little brain I have left and can't even begin to
recall where I saw that.
Harry K
Sean Pitman
> >However, what I do "decry" is letting one's own personal bias and
> >cautious investigation of new or opposing ideas overcome their ability
> >to accept change before having to be hit on the head with a freight
> >train. Of course, sometimes that is what it appears to take for each
> >one of us to change. Really, it is impossible to change until one is
> >truly convinced of error regardless of how convincing the "evidence"
> >might be to someone else. It seems to me though, that if one is at
> >least aware of personal bias that this may help overcome some degree
> >of unnecessary resistance to change.
>
> Sean, what you don't seem to get is that a major change does
> INDEED require a freight train's worth of evidence to change past
> orthodoxy. And it should. It's a feature, not a bug.
It seems to me that science does not require one to be completely
knocked over by evidence before it becomes rational and prudent to
accept a new idea. All that is required by science is that the weight
of available evidence be statistically in favor of the new position.
The statistical significance that is required is usually predetermined
and it is far less than that seemingly required by you and those who
apposed Bretz for several decades.
Of course, you disagree thinking that Bretz simply didn't have what it
took to make a convincing case. At this point I am wondering if you
have actually read very much about the debates that went on between
Bretz and those who apposed him. The evidence presented by Bretz was
most certainly substantial and clear and his conclusions abundantly
obvious to anyone approaching the problem with a candid mind. He
certainly had the great weight of evidence on his side very early on
and well before the actual source of his flood was discovered. Just
because one doesn't have the guts to admit error and accept the weight
of evidence does not mean that the evidence is not sufficient enough
to form a solid scientific basis of belief. Again, even Joseph Pardee
was convinced by Bretz's arguments very early on despite having
written papers supporting the prevailing uniformitarian position
requiring millions of years of time.
Pardee was unusual though. Many of the others who initially apposed
Bretz continued to appose him until they died. Really, it seems to be
a fundamental truth, as several have recognized, that science does not
advance significantly in each generation until old "set in their ways"
scientists die. Only then can new ideas actually be seriously
considered.
Really Mr. Tang, I would advise you not to get so stuck in a rut of
thinking so much so that it takes almost a miracle for you to get out
of it. Certainly there are those, especially among scientists, that
are so stuck in a particular mindset that "they will not be convinced
even if someone rises from the dead."
Harry K
> "Harry K" <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:751f8d35.04070...@posting.google.com...
> > "R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
> news:<MZ3Fc.22416$x9.1...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
> > > "Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in
> message
> > > news:80d0c26f.04070...@posting.google.com...
> > > > John Stockwell <jo...@dix.Mines.EDU> wrote in message
> news:<Pine.LNX.4.58.04...@wenzel.Mines.EDU
>
<snip>
> > >
> > > Note that many of the geologists in the 1920's and 1930's lived on the
> east
> > > coast and did not have ready access to the Channeled Scablands. Their
> > > skepticism for a colossal jokulhaups of the like never before observed,
> with
> > > no proposed source of water, was entirely reasonable - especially given
> the
> > > amount of effort required in field work to corroborate the idea.
> >
> > Delurk for a question here. Apologize for sorta OT.
> >
> > I live right near the channeled scablands - even ran level lines for
> > the Geo Survey through a short length of it back in 1977. In my
> > omniverous reading somewhere I recall seeing that the theory wasn't
> > really accepted until aerial survey got observers up high enough to
> > really see the ripple formations because they were so out-sized.
> > True?
> >
> > Harry K
> >
>
> I haven't read this, but my readings on Bretz have been fairly limited. Do
> you recall when the aerial survey might have been?
Just after I sent my previous, I recalled that I had seen it on the
net. A quick look just now (only one page of many google hits) turned
up one reference:
http://nwcreation.net/scablands.html
What a shock to see that not only was that a creationist site but the
amount of creationist sites really astounded me. The fact it is a
creo site, however, doesn't seem to detract from the statement that
the ripples only become apparent from the air. I don't recall if I
mentioned it in my prior, but I have been on the ground several times
and can attest that from that viewpoint, the ripples are not apparent,
spaced too far apart.
Harry K
Zachriel
"Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:80d0c26f.04070...@posting.google.com...
news:<cc5oi3$fku$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu>...
>
> > >However, what I do "decry" is letting one's own personal bias and
> > >cautious investigation of new or opposing ideas overcome their ability
> > >to accept change before having to be hit on the head with a freight
> > >train. Of course, sometimes that is what it appears to take for each
> > >one of us to change. Really, it is impossible to change until one is
> > >truly convinced of error regardless of how convincing the "evidence"
> > >might be to someone else. It seems to me though, that if one is at
> > >least aware of personal bias that this may help overcome some degree
> > >of unnecessary resistance to change.
> >
> > Sean, what you don't seem to get is that a major change does
> > INDEED require a freight train's worth of evidence to change past
> > orthodoxy. And it should. It's a feature, not a bug.
>
> It seems to me that science does not require one to be completely
> knocked over by evidence before it becomes rational and prudent to
> accept a new idea. All that is required by science is that the weight
> of available evidence be statistically in favor of the new position.
> The statistical significance that is required is usually predetermined
> and it is far less than that seemingly required by you and those who
> apposed Bretz for several decades.
I took the time to reread what you have posted on your own website
concerning Bretz. According to your own telling, Bretz was accorded every
opportunity to present and defend his views.
He published two papers in the Geological Society of America in 1923,
including his flood hypothesis. In 1927 he was asked to present his ideas
before his peers. Apparently, he attempted to answer the objections raised
at that meeting, but the main question remained as to where all that water
supposedly came from. However, his ideas were considered serious enough to
be discussed by other geologists. Other meetings were organized in 1940 to
discuss the issue, including a field trip to the actual site. (Bretz did not
attend.) No consensus was reached at that time. In 1952, Bretz collected
more evidence, including aerial photography, and published in 1956. Most
geologists were convinced during a field trip to the area in 1960. In 1979,
Bretz was awarded the Penrose Medal. Good for Bretz for his perseverence.
"In 1952 Bretz made yet another field trip to the scablands and returned
with even more evidence to include detailed maps, aerial photographs, and
sedimentological information. In his subsequent 1956 paper, Bretz concluded
that the most convincing evidence for a cataclysmic flood proved to be the
presence of giant current ripples on bar surfaces."
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/harlenbretz.html
I don't get your point. This is how science usually works. Bretz had a great
hypothesis, but not enough evidence to convince the skeptics. He and others
finally collected the evidence and he was eventually recognized. According
to your own website, it was the evidence that convinced the scientific
establishment.
RobinGoodfellow
> gwan...@u.washington.edu (R. Tang) wrote in message news:<cc5oi3$fku$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu>...
[snip discussion of Bretz, Pardee, and obstinate geologists]
> Really, it seems to be a fundamental truth, as several have recognized,
> that science does not advance significantly in each generation until old
> "set in their ways" scientists die. Only then can new ideas actually be
> seriously considered.
I suppose that means that there's a hidden cabal of evolutionists
somewhere who have been alive for the last 150 years, and as soon as
the last of them buckles under, ID will surely have its day.
Seriously, Sean, how can you even propose the above, much less
proclaim it as fundamental truth? Many biologists, physicists,
chemists, geologists, etc. who still actively participate in research
today have been around in their fields since the 50s or even the 40s.
Can you suggest, with a straight face, that no significant progress
has been made in those sciences in the last five to six decades? And
to call this notion "fundamental truth" in a post where you urge
others to be skeptical of authoritative opinions seems just a tad
hypocritical.
Sean Pitman
> > Note that many of the geologists in the 1920's and 1930's lived on the east
> > coast and did not have ready access to the Channeled Scablands. Their
> > skepticism for a colossal jokulhaups of the like never before observed,with
> > no proposed source of water, was entirely reasonable - especially given the
> > amount of effort required in field work to corroborate the idea.
>
> But we have to accept that these east coast geologists were so guided
> by the idea of gradualism that they were unable to even see the
> observations Bretz was presenting. These are the same people who were
> unable to see the data which supported continental drift theory.
> Their refusal to accept the Bretz floods until the source of water was
> found is similar to their refusal to accept continental drift until
> the mechanism of plate tectonics was discovered. Sean has a point
> that current theory can place tremendous restrictions upon
> observation.
Exactly . . .
> Of course, it should also be noted that it wasn't the
> Noah's flood advocates (now wouldn't that be something) that uncovered
> the Bretz floods but it was scientists who are members of that large
> community that has proven life has existed on earth for more than 3
> billion years.
Even if it was a "Noah's flood advocate" that did uncover something,
it wouldn't be recognized or taken seriously or even given credit when
it was discovered to be "true" by mainstream scientists. Take, for
example, the case of outspoken creationist Raymond Damadian, the main
inventor of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) machine, who was
passed over for the 2003 Nobel Prize. It was instead given to two
other developers of the MRI, Paul Lauterbur (University of Illinois)
and Sir Peter Mansfield (University of Nottingham, England).
In the December 2003 issue of "Scientific American" no less it was
noted that:
"[T]here is no question that Damadian played a key role in the
development of MRI machines routinely used in hospitals today . . .
The Nobel committee's decision in this case, however, seemed to be an
intentional slap in Damadian's face. Award rules permit up to three
winners in each category, so the committee could have included
Damadian. Curiously, the Nobel's press release describing the winners,
which typically acknowledges other contributors, fails to mention
Damadian."
http://www.fonar.com/nobel.htm
Yam, P. 2003. "The Nobel Prizes for 2003." Scientific American 289,
no. 6, p. 42. ( http://www.rae.org/ )
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0528damadian_decision.asp
> Mike Syvanen
syvanen
>
>
> > > Note that many of the geologists in the 1920's and 1930's lived on the east
> > > coast and did not have ready access to the Channeled Scablands. Their
> > > skepticism for a colossal jokulhaups of the like never before observed,with
> > > no proposed source of water, was entirely reasonable - especially given the
> > > amount of effort required in field work to corroborate the idea.
> >
> > But we have to accept that these east coast geologists were so guided
> > by the idea of gradualism that they were unable to even see the
> > observations Bretz was presenting. These are the same people who were
> > unable to see the data which supported continental drift theory.
> > Their refusal to accept the Bretz floods until the source of water was
> > found is similar to their refusal to accept continental drift until
> > the mechanism of plate tectonics was discovered. Sean has a point
> > that current theory can place tremendous restrictions upon
> > observation.
>
> Exactly . . .
>
> > Of course, it should also be noted that it wasn't the
> > Noah's flood advocates (now wouldn't that be something) that uncovered
> > the Bretz floods but it was scientists who are members of that large
> > community that has proven life has existed on earth for more than 3
> > billion years.
>
> Even if it was a "Noah's flood advocate" that did uncover something,
> it wouldn't be recognized or taken seriously or even given credit when
> it was discovered to be "true" by mainstream scientists.
They had their chance, but they missed it.
> Take, for
> example, the case of outspoken creationist Raymond Damadian, the main
> inventor of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) machine, who was
> passed over for the 2003 Nobel Prize. It was instead given to two
> other developers of the MRI, Paul Lauterbur (University of Illinois)
> and Sir Peter Mansfield (University of Nottingham, England).
What does this have to do with the Bretz floods? Or even geology?
Mike Syvanen
John Stockwell
>John Stockwell <jo...@dix.Mines.EDU> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.58.04...@wenzel.Mines.EDU>...
>
>You know John, I'm not arguing against science or the scientific
>method here.
Of course you are! You refuse to consider any science that does not
agree with your biblically consistent notions.
>I am arguing against the prevailing opinion that popular
>scientists are somehow more than human and are therefore above letting
>human passion get mixed up with their theories and ideas about what is
>right and what is wrong. The story of J Harlen Bretz is a classic
>illustration of this problem, a problem that just hasn't gone away and
>probably never will go away. We all have to watch out for the bias
>problem within ourselves.
There is no *problem* with J H Bretz! How many times do we have to
point that out to you! Even though he lived in a much more
catastrophism-hostile era, his ideas came to be accepted in his lifetime.
An example of people hung up on bias would be those handful of geologists
who *have* to believe in a worldwide flood. For example, in a past
discussion we had, you were trying to argue for the absolutely absurd
position that the Coconino sandstone was water deposited! Now *that*
is an example of people hung up on a bias.
>Certainly, as you point out, we do have 20/20 hindsight vision today
>when we look at Bretz's story. But, just imagine yourself having only
>the information that Bretz had by the 1930s. Look at the topography
>maps that he looked at and look only at the features that he observed,
>and see if it is not strikingly obvious, just from what he saw then,
>that a very large flood was indeed responsible - without even knowing
>the source.
It is obvious that something went on there, but without a source for
the water, it would just be some weird looking topography.
>Even Joseph Pardee, once he read Bretz's papers, was
>convinced very early on that Bretz was right even though he had
>previously written a paper supporting the theory that unusual
>glaciation had carved out the scablands over millions of years.
Indeed, Pardee did what any scientist would do---he proposed a mechanism
for the phenomenon that was a "minimum astonishment" mechanism. After
he saw Bretz additional evidence, he then proposed the correct mechanism
for the source of the water. It apparently took Bretz some time to
accept Partee's idea.
>Clearly the stubbornness and amazing blindness of Bretz's peers was
>due to nothing more than a passionate unwillingness to accept that
>sudden catastrophe, especially a sudden watery catastrophe, played any
>sort of significant part in the geology of this planet.
Any "stubbornness and blindness" of that community of geologists is nothing
like the vastly greater "stubbornness and amazing blindness" of the
modern creationist community.
>
>The same thing is happening today.
Yep. Creationists are definitely stubborn and blind.
>You yourself are accusing many
>people of doing this very thing. You think that the evidence for
>evolution and long ages of geological development are so obvious that
>only the "ignorant, stupid, or insane" could possibly doubt the
>validity of your position. Is this not so?
It has been my experience that the only people who have a problem with
the current standard model theories, wishing to promote some sort of
Biblical-literalist "science", tend to be non-scientists, scientists or
engineers working out of their fields, or a tiny minority of scientists
who work at or are members of institutions that have a requirement of
Biblically consistent science. These people (yourself included) do not
have scientific motivations, but rather have purely religious motivations
for their ideas.
>But, do you stop to
>question that maybe there just isn't enough evidence to be as
>confident in your position as you obviously are? No, because it is so
>obvious to you that you are in fact correct even though you don't have
>all the evidence. The evidence that you do have is as clear and
>overwhelming as the most confident truth that you know of in your life
>- right?
In my lifetime, I have seen the geological community hesitantly accept
the notion of plate tectonics, but only after overwhelming evidence was
provided. I have seen all aspects of the earth sciences advance. I have
seen radiometric dating go from being an imprecise toy to become a
precise technology. I have seen our notions about the origin of rock
units expand, and have seen geology go from being a rock-hammer and
handlens descriptive game, to become a quantitative science.
In short, since I was a kid, geology has undergone a revolution--
a revolution that takes us farther still from the notions you would like
to be true.
As to yourself, Sean, you are a rank amateur. You have been bamboozled by
your buddies at Loma Linda, who are using you to promote things that they
could not possibly promote and retain any scientific credibility, whatsoever.
Your position is not enviable. You belong to a religion that does not
allow you to accept anything that could possibly contradict your basic
tenet of Bibilical historicity and Biblically infallibility. It can't be
easy to look at the world from that position.
>
>Isn't it interesting then that when it has turned out that mainstream
>science has been wrong many times in what was just as fervently
>believed not just 70 or 80 years ago, but just 1 or 2 years ago, your
>argument was and will be that, "They just didn't have enough
>information yet, but they changed their minds when they did."
That is the way of science. There is no easy road to scientific
knowledge.
>Now isn't that just fascinating? When those who disagree with you use
>this very same argument, saying that there just isn't enough evidence
>yet to convince them of evolution and millions of years of geologic
>column, you throw up your hands in disgust and shocked disbelief.
Those who disagee with me tend to have a religious agenda, or don't
have my experience in science.
>Honestly, I'm doing the same thing when evolutionists, like you,
>declare in all sincerity that they simply do not recognize what I
>consider to be overwhelming evidence for a very rapid and catastrophic
>formation of the geologic column and fossil record as well as
>impossible statistical limits to biological evolution via mindless
>evolutionary mechanisms.
Basically, you do not have overwhelming evidence for any of the things
you are pushing.
>
>I'm sure that each of us is wondering exactly the same thing at this
>point. That is, "Just how much evidence does it take to convince a
>mind like a brick wall?!" Certainly any brick wall can be beat down
>with a big enough sledge hammer, but it is just so surprising to me
>sometimes just HOW big that sledgehammer has to get before it seems to
>make an impact on some people.
The difference is, Sean, we know what we are talking about, you don't.
>I'm sure that Bretz was feeling the very same way in his day. He
>already had overwhelming evidence, way before the source for his flood
>was found, to convince anyone who wasn't already steeped in and
>blinded by uniformitarianist dogma that a huge flood was in fact
>responsible for the scabland features. I'm sure that initially Bretz
>thought he might get SOME resistance from those who were in support of
>the "millions of years" theory for the scablands, but I think it came
>as a great surprise to him just HOW stubborn his peers turned out to
>be.
Basically, Sean, Bretz was a scientist. He did the work, took his lumps,
and eventually was honored. You, on the other hand, are an amateur
who thinks that making up ad hoc hypotheses is doing science.
>For example, how would you react if I told you that the Western Grand
>Canyon is no longer thought by mainstream scientists to be 5.5 million
>years old nor is it thought to have been carved out gradually, but
>rather it is now claimed to have been carved out catastrophically over
>a relatively short period of time (as little as 500,000 years)?
So what? We are talking about scientific evidence here. The work of
O-Connor and Webb is well known, exciting, and if true will likely
make the understanding of parts of the Canyon more clear. (It won't help you
though.)
>Lava
>dams, that, until very recently, were thought by many scientists to
>have required tens to hundreds of thousands of years to erode slowly
>away, are now believed by mainstream scientists, as recently as two or
>three years ago, to have collapsed catastrophically within minutes.
>Yes, you read correctly. The current claim is that these GC lava dams
>collapsed within 50 to 80 minutes. Now, I would say that is just a
>bit off of "tens or hundreds of thousands of years" - wouldn't you?
>Such sudden collapses are know known to have released huge walls of
>water that carved out large portions of the Western Grand Canyon
>within a time span of only minutes to hours. Now, some are even
>asking if that Grand Canyon isn't actually a "Geologic Infant?"
Some of the parts of the Canyon are old, for sure. These newer ideas
are exciting and worth watching. A 700,000 year age for parts
of the Canyon hardly help your case, though. Even if the majority of
the Canyon was excavated in the past million years, that still doesn't
help you.
Frankly, I don't see any stiff opposition to their ideas. It seems that
there is due consideration of the ideas they are proposing.
>
>Ed Stiles, "Is the Grand Canyon a Geologic Infant?" The University of
>Arizona News, OPI, July 18, 2002 (
>http://uanews.opi.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/UANews.woa/1/wa/SRStoryDetails?ArticleID=5820&wosid=7RudwGAB7hQJYHvwohuzt0
>)
>
>Again, how could modern geologists have missed such evidence of
>catastrophe as they viewed the Grand Canyon for all of these years?
>Just look at the pictures. Not only the layers, but the formation of
>the GC itself is so clearly catastrophic in nature.
Except the parts that are not, which is most of it. If you want to
talk about larger movement of material, nobody believes in "grain by
grain" erosion anymore. If you want to call those "catastrophies"
then I suppose you could.
>Especially look at
>the satellite pictures of the region as well as other aerial
>photographs and see if the sharp punched out look, steep sides, and
>the very straight orientation of the Canyon are not much more
>consistent with catastrophe on an almost unimaginable scale rather
>than the long held belief that the relatively little Colorado River
>carved out such features over millions of years.
We are still talking about millions of years for the majority of
the Canyon. No help for the flood. (You also have those depositional problems
to deal with.) So, what a minimum of 1/2 a million years. That isn't
as catastrophic as you would like.
>Many regions of the
>GC even look a great deal like topography maps of various scabland
>features, only on a larger scale.
Hardly.
>Does this not make you stop and think, just a little bit, as to how
>solid your position may actually be? Perhaps those like you are just
>too knowledgeable to wonder about such things, but I know that there
>are in fact others with a fair degree of intelligence as well as
>knowledge and professional training in geology that are in fact doing
>more than just considering that features like the Grand Canyon and
>Monument Valley are actually monuments to magnificent catastrophe.
>Certainly, as far as I have looked into this matter, it seems like the
>evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of a rather recent and sudden
>catastrophic model.
It makes me stop and think that you should have gone into used car
sales, instead of medicine.
>
>Again, for those who are interested, I present more detailed
>discussions and pictures at:
>
>http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/geologiccolumn.html
The web of deceit.
>Sean
-John
John Stockwell
>>gwan...@u.washington.edu (R. Tang) wrote in message news:<cc4jfp$ute$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu>...
>
>> I will suggest that Mr. Pittman, like many other Creationists,
>> simply cannot accept that "playing hardball" is a natural way of life,
>> particularly among the elite. It comes from their mindset that knowledge
>> is revealed and handed down from on high, in a top-down process.
>
>I will suggest to you that there is just a bit of a difference from
>"playing hardball" and being "hardheaded". The opponents of Bretz
>clearly went far beyond playing hardball. They thought to play
>hardball in the face of very clear evidence that Bretz was in fact
>correct. Clearly, this story is one that demonstrates passionate
>deliberate hardheadedness in an attempt to avoid admitting personal
>error after many years of supporting a baseless position. It is a
>story that shows how limiting a strong personal bias can be to the
>finding of improved understanding.
Not at all. The whole science had to advance to accomodate Bretz' idea.
It was "hardball" because the reservations of the geological community
did not keep the idea from being published, nor did it keep Bretz' notions
from being accepted.
>
>> That's not how it's done in science. It's not how it's done in
>> business. It's not how it's done in sports. You have to prove yourself on
>> a daily basis...and it's a rough, bruising process THAT'S PERFECTLY
>> NORMAL.
>
>Is it perfectly "normal" and "good" to play "hardball" so long that
>you actually hinder progress? At what point has resistance to a new
>theory, in the face a significant weight of evidence, simply turned
>from a desire for aggressive and clear demonstration to a hindrance
>and a cog in the wheels of progress?
I see no evidence that "progress was held back" by this.
>
>> It's just that Pittman and his ilk are too soft to tolerate this
>> themselves, so they decry it...particularly when it's applied to them.
>
>Come on now. If you really knew me or had followed my threads in this
>forum for any length of time you would know that I don't mind playing
>the hardball game at all.
Anybody who thinks that the Coconino sandstone was deposited by a
flood is definitely in the hardheaded camp.
>In fact, I really enjoy it. If I was soft
>to it, especially when applied to me, then why would I keep coming
>back for more? Certainly it is clear that I am in the distinct
>minority in this particular forum. If anyone gets the majority of
>hardballs thrown in their direction, that would be me.
As you should.
>Also, anyone
>who has made it through and succeeded in medical school and residency
>as well as the Army will know what it is like to play hardball with
>the big boys. You just will not survive if you aren't up for a good
>game of hardball and very tough knocks. Obviously then, I'm not at all
>opposed to a good game of hardball since I've been playing it my whole
>life.
Science is much harder hardball than you have played.
>However, what I do "decry" is letting one's own personal bias and
>cautious investigation of new or opposing ideas overcome their ability
>to accept change before having to be hit on the head with a freight
>train. Of course, sometimes that is what it appears to take for each
>one of us to change. Really, it is impossible to change until one is
>truly convinced of error regardless of how convincing the "evidence"
>might be to someone else. It seems to me though, that if one is at
>least aware of personal bias that this may help overcome some degree
>of unnecessary resistance to change.
I decry people lying about science to further religion, which is what
creationism is all about.
>
>Sean
-John
John Stockwell
>gwan...@u.washington.edu (R. Tang) wrote in message news:<cc5oi3$fku$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu>...
>
>> >However, what I do "decry" is letting one's own personal bias and
>> >cautious investigation of new or opposing ideas overcome their ability
>> >to accept change before having to be hit on the head with a freight
>> >train. Of course, sometimes that is what it appears to take for each
>> >one of us to change. Really, it is impossible to change until one is
>> >truly convinced of error regardless of how convincing the "evidence"
>> >might be to someone else. It seems to me though, that if one is at
>> >least aware of personal bias that this may help overcome some degree
>> >of unnecessary resistance to change.
>>
>> Sean, what you don't seem to get is that a major change does
>> INDEED require a freight train's worth of evidence to change past
>> orthodoxy. And it should. It's a feature, not a bug.
>
>It seems to me that science does not require one to be completely
>knocked over by evidence before it becomes rational and prudent to
>accept a new idea. All that is required by science is that the weight
>of available evidence be statistically in favor of the new position.
>The statistical significance that is required is usually predetermined
>and it is far less than that seemingly required by you and those who
>apposed Bretz for several decades.
What a laugh! Where, pray tell, were the statistical measures you quote!
>
>Of course, you disagree thinking that Bretz simply didn't have what it
>took to make a convincing case.
He did make a convincing case!
>At this point I am wondering if you
>have actually read very much about the debates that went on between
>Bretz and those who apposed him. The evidence presented by Bretz was
>most certainly substantial and clear and his conclusions abundantly
>obvious to anyone approaching the problem with a candid mind.
It might be obvious to anybody who had the preconceived notion that
a Big Flood did it all.
>He
>certainly had the great weight of evidence on his side very early on
>and well before the actual source of his flood was discovered. Just
>because one doesn't have the guts to admit error and accept the weight
>of evidence does not mean that the evidence is not sufficient enough
>to form a solid scientific basis of belief. Again, even Joseph Pardee
>was convinced by Bretz's arguments very early on despite having
>written papers supporting the prevailing uniformitarian position
>requiring millions of years of time.
Pardee also proposed the source of the flood. It was up to somebody
to go out in the field and look at the rocks to confirm the idea.
>
>Pardee was unusual though. Many of the others who initially apposed
>Bretz continued to appose him until they died. Really, it seems to be
>a fundamental truth, as several have recognized, that science does not
>advance significantly in each generation until old "set in their ways"
>scientists die. Only then can new ideas actually be seriously
>considered.
The reason for this is that scientific arguments are not always clear cut
probability studies. There is often no objective scale for the "weight of
evidence," particularly in a field such as geology, where it is often
difficult to do precise quantitative modeling. The "weight of evidence"
is measured by the ability of the proponent to convince a
significant portion of the community. So, yes, it is also part of the
scientific method that the old make way for the young, but also,
the old have to be cleared out of the way for the young.
Again, so what? That is the way the game is played.
>
>Really Mr. Tang, I would advise you not to get so stuck in a rut of
>thinking so much so that it takes almost a miracle for you to get out
>of it. Certainly there are those, especially among scientists, that
>are so stuck in a particular mindset that "they will not be convinced
>even if someone rises from the dead."
Indeed, Mr. Tang could stop thinking totall, and he would be just like
Sean Pitman.
>
>Sean
-John