PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE
Interpretation of Data and a Look Ahead to 2021
Nancy J. Wolverson, CPG-11048
nancyjeanw@aol.com
Welcome to 2021! That is not how I would normally start a President’s Message, but it is the only positive way to move on from 2020. How each of us dealt with a truly unusual year will be a lively topic of conversation for years to come. COVID-19 has had, and will continue to have, significant impacts on business and the economy, while we look forward to a bumpy recovery.
In an attempt to keep your attention, I will start with a discussion of my pet peeve: data acquisition and interpretation. Geologists observe, collect, record, and then interpret data dur- ing all aspects of their careers. How we complete these tasks determines the quality and duration of the interpretation. As scientists, we should observe, collect and record with as few preconceived notions as possible while bringing our geological experience and breadth of knowledge with us to every proj- ect, task and decision. The collection of data often becomes a narrowly defined task that can put restrictions on what is observed by specifying criteria to be looked for and recorded, often by using “boxes” to be filled. No matter how well the boxes are defined, they are limited to the knowledge base at the time of definition, thus not allowing for new or different data to be recorded. Often the collection of data is relegated to the least experienced person on the project and they are often told that everything must fit in a box. Any interpretation is only as good as the data collected.
And now I want to take you back to your academic years when you learned the principles of superposition, original horizontality, relative age dating, among others. You should have also learned the method of Multiple Working Hypotheses by T. C. Chamberlin (1890), who wrote very eloquently about the method, the difficulties of using it and why it is so impor- tant. The method is one for “primary or creative study” and is most applicable to the fields of study where new data is being constantly added. It states simply that facts (data) should be evaluated against every rational interpretation, a set of hypotheses should be developed, and then each hypothesis should be evaluated without favoring any. The method can avoid forcing facts to fit a theory or model.
I believe that we often rush to interpretation by using models to guide our data collection rather than by using all the data to guide us to all possible interpretations. I am often amazed that the first question at an outcrop or mine is “What type of deposit is it?” before discussion of the specific geological features that can be observed or gleaned from the outcrop or data. By start- ing with a model, you are only repeating what others have said and not being creative or evaluating all available data. Ideally, the Multiple Working Hypotheses method of evaluat- ing data removes some of the bias and preconceived notions from interpretations. In summary, data collection should not
www.aipg.org
be restrictive, but should allow for the possible existence of criteria not previously recognized. Interpretations should be based on evaluation of all rational theories rather than start- ing with a model and collecting data to support that model.
To each one of you who thinks that I am directing my com- ments on data and interpretation to you, to your geoscience specialty, or to any specific specialty, the answer is yes and no. I am directing it at all specialties equally. Geoscientists need to ensure that the data used for interpretation is complete and defensible, and that interpretations are based on all the data, not just the data that fits a model. Models can be useful tools but if we do our job correctly, the models will constantly be improved as new data is added.
Is our concept of the role of AIPG tied to a model that is no longer relevant? Are we perhaps not seeing needs that can be filled and opportunities that AIPG could provide because we are blinded by what has been done in the past? What data we use and how it is interpreted is critical to keeping AIPG relevant and valuable for our current and future members.
My main focus as 2021 President of AIPG is membership. We must have a clear concept of the value of membership to attract new members and to keep our current members active. New members include all levels of membership, and how we attract them and retain current members in each member category varies greatly. We need to define the best way to approach each category. It is our duty to ensure that AIPG membership requirements meet the needs of those geologists that use their membership for their professional careers and that they remain consistent with similar organizations in the US and worldwide.
Many of our members have been working geologists for over 40 years, while the newest student members are just decid- ing on their career path. They work in specialized fields of geoscience across a broad spectrum of industries, state and federal agencies and academia. AIPG needs all of their voices to better understand the needs of the geoscience community.
To maintain and increase membership in all categories, AIPG must increase its visibility and distinguish itself from other geologic organizations. We need new voices and ideas from all geological specialties and geographic areas. Please contact me if you would like to help guide AIPG on the National level.
Reference:
Chamberlin, T.C., 1890, The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses; Science, February 7, 1890.
Jan.Feb.Mar 2021 • TPG 33
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56
