Why Geoscience History Matters
David M. Abbott, Jr., CPG-04570
Rasoul Sorkhabi’s article, “Why History Matters,” in Apr/ The Professional Geologist begins by quot- ing Archibald Geikie’s observation that, “In science, as in all departments of inquiry, no thorough grasp of a subject can be gained, unless the history of its development is clearly appreci- ated.”1 Sorkhabi then observes, “The history of earth science has no place in the current geoscience programs in universities. The vast majority of geology departments do not offer a course on the history of earth science. Even geoscience textbooks focus on concepts with little information on the history.” I am quite disturbed and saddened by Sorkhabi’s observation because some interest in and understanding of the history of geology has always been part of my geoscience education. John Playfair’s account of James Hutton’s visit to Siccar Point describes an historically important geologic observation. Darwin’s Origin of the Species is a foundational work for fossil evolution and the Earth History course. Chamberlain’s insistence on mul- tiple working hypotheses while working out field problems and Bowen’s reaction series are other examples of historically important geologic observations from my undergraduate days.
In my presentation, “Industrial minerals all around us: much used, little recognized,” I begin by noting that stone
and flint tools and arrowheads and the potsherds beloved by archeologists result from stone age industrial mineral usage and mining. The location and mapping of flint quarries with distinctive flints and the mapping of the flint tools made from these distinctive flints are evidence of Native American trading patterns. Salt sources within continents are marked by the location of important cities, e.g., Salzburg, Austria or Salina, Kansas.
I took paleontology in the spring term of my senior year and the grade depended on writing a paper that reviewed the development of the geologic time scale and either defending its continued use or proposing an alternative. I found that the fossil-based Phanerozoic time scale worked was somewhat surprising given the different places and times of the initial description of the various periods as summarized in the fol- lowing table.
That term paper also caused me to read many classic papers on the fossil record, extinction, and Earth History. When I was in grad school, the one universally required course for the PhD was on the development of geologic concepts, which involved
Geologic Periods in Order of Definition
1795 Jurassic, von Humbolt 1822 Cretaceous, d’Halloy 1834 Triassic, von Alberti 1835 Cambrian, Sedgwick 1835 Silurian, Murchison
1837 Devonian, Sedgwick 1841 Permian, Sedgwick 1870 Mississippian, Winchell 1879 Ordovician, Lapworth 1891 Pennsylvanian, Williams
After Table 3-1 in Clark, T.H., & Stearn, C.W., 1968, Geological evolution of North America, 2nd ed.: The Ronald Press Company, New York, p. 48.
1. Geike, Sir Archibald, 1902, The founders of geology: Macmillan, London, p. 1.
www.aipg.org Jul.Aug.Sep 2021 • TPG 51
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 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64
