ie The Scientific Method and the Plate Tectonic Revolution > In the preceding chapters we outline the tectonic processes currently active on Earth and something of their recent "history. A& this point, we would like to pause in our narrative and discuss the scientific method and, in particular, how the study of geology proceeds, Much of the material ia Chapters 3-9 gen erally posedaces the place eecconic revolution in geo- logy, which oceucred in the 1960s and early 1970s, This macerial checeface provides insight ito how sci- entific revolutions occur and what happens in che aftermath of such’ zevolution, In citing this aside an interlude, we have un- _abashedly followed che example of one of the owentierh-century giants of sccuctucal geology and tectonics, Hans Cloos, who inserted an laceclude titled “To a Former Studene” in his aucobiogcaphical Book Conversation with the Earth. Cloos's almost lyrical prose about the teacher-stucene relationship still makes good reading, although ic was weleten well before the advene of place cecconics, and he himself strongly doubsed the validicy of Wegener's hypothe sis, Cloos weoee: My third teacher was by far the wisest and most trustworthy, though he used neither books nor pictures, and was-a poor lecturer. He was pair Fully silent. would talk only after repeated urging, and then often spoke alinost unincelligibly in a e language which had to be translated to be under. stood. But what he bad to say was final and exhaustive, and could be passed on in good conscience t0 those who either would not or could not go directly to him for information. This teacher was nature itself. (Cloos, 1953) The Scientific Method The Science of Geology ology is the science of the histocy of Earth's evolu- a. Ie is based, First, on observations of che Eacch itself and other planecary bodies, buc che application of such sciences as biology, chemistry, physics, and materials scieace is alsPPRURED co underscand the processes we observe. Geology differs from these ‘other sciences in at lease theée ways, however si Fiese, geology fundamentally 2 historically ‘oriented Science dealing with processes that for the cemost parc occuc on a time scale thas is immepss com: Vk pared with’ human lives Tne eee one observe an entire pcocess directly; we can see only what is happening ac x single geological inseanc in rime, Because of this conscraine, the infecence of geo: logic processes cies heavily upon che flurdamreral1 q assumption that spatial variation can be interpreted as teniporal evolution. In othec words, we assume that che same process can be found in various stages of advancement in different places and that therefore wwe can piece together observations made in diffecene places to infer @ temporal evolution of that process. Second, geology deals with lacge-scale and com- plex systems for which controlled experiments are difficule if not impossible to consteuce. Thus, the ob- secvation and description of natural features acquire proportionacely more importance than they have in most othec sciences. “Third, the face that geologic evidence is fragmen- tary and incomplete makes many of the inferences drawn from the data nonunique and highly depen- denc upon our intuition and experience. Despite these diffecences, the methods employed by geologists co investigate the Earth are philosophi- cally much the same as those used in other realms of science. In the cemainder.of this section, 3ve gxealoee ‘some of the philosophical underpins Sees y ence chat are usually uaderstood implicitly and im- parted at best by osmosis. From Hypotheses to Laws In discussions of stcuctural and tectonic features, we refer repeatedly to models,of such processes as the production of crystallogeaphic preferred orientations, the formation of folds and faults, and the formation cca continental margins, or the evolution of tri- ple fanctiond. This continual use of models prompcs the question’? What do scientific models have to do with reality? To answer the question, and to under- stand a scientific discussion, it is necessary to under- stand the meanings of che terms fack model, hypothe- sy, theory, and law as they ace used in science ‘A fact, is an objective observation or measure- ment, verifiable by any trained observer. The rock type that occurs at a given outerop or the atcicude of =a dippin: re wo examples of objective facts. “Faces are as near to “eruth” a5 one gets in science, but because eccor always exists, che precision and ac- cacacy! of a measurement or obsecvation are never perfect. Trecign j he closeness of one measurement fo the mean value ‘of many messucemencs of the same quantcy. The scandacd de- A hypothesis is a proposed explanation xi 9 more observations. The cerm model is often synony- mous with hypothesis. The mere proposal of a hypo- thesis or model does nos, of course, imply that ic is useful. For example, che ancien: Egyptian belief that fogs formed from the mud of the Nile did not con- tribuce much co the understanding of biology. Pechaps che mose straight-forward example of such a model in geology is a simple geologic map. + Even in such a basic exercise as mapping, the scientist must exercise judgment. Two observers of the same field area will see and cecord different things depend- ing upon the sharpness of theic vision, theic interests and knowledge, the goals oftheir search, and the, models chey wish co cess, If geologic mapping were a completely objective and reproducible exercise, there would be no field work left to do once an area was carefully mapped. In fact, theie is always more to do because new models such as plate tectonics spawn new questions chac canaot be answered wich existing information.2 Old maps ace useful in evaluating areas, foc furcher study or in posing new questions, but they rarely provide answers to the kinds of questions we pose today. In poorly known regions, ic is aow com mon practice (0 use regional images from aerial pho- togcaphy or satelite imagery co get an idea of whacis fon the gcound before committing oneself eo time- consuming and expensive fieldwork. Thus, good models are important for-under- standing scructuzal and tectonic features. When read ing about the structure oc tectonic development of a feature of an area, a cecconic or secuctural geologist should keep in mind such questions such as: How stcongly-do the data constrain the model? Are other models equally plausible? Are the naodels testable, ‘and has the researcher provided any tests? Do the available data satisfy che tests? Only such a critical approach co scientific interpretation can lead to effi- cient advances in our understanding of che Earth and other planets. In order to be useful, a model must satisfy three ccicecia: fest, it must be testable, which means it must provide predictions chat can ia principle at least be verified by obsecvation. Ideally, the predictions in: \ dicate some previously uftecognized or unexpected aspect or behavior of che process or system under investigation. Second, ic must be powerful, which means i¢ muse be capable of explaining a large num- ber of disparate obsecvations. viation, for example, i a seateicl messure of precision. Accuracy, _ fortes isthe closeness of a measuresnent co the crue value ofthe quancry. Thus, one ca measuee the atcicude of 2 smooth, planar bedding suriace more precisely thaa a rough, ieegular one. fin doing $0, One uied 2 compass with che weong magnetic deslinacion, the imeasicerente would be inaecurare even though i€ may have beer preche 245 INTERLUDE fp common tock of undestanding ofthis aspect of che fs meshod is iliuseeaced bv the story of che legstacor who ak fesse geologist, "Why do you need funds fur geologic mappicg? You have hast 4 map of the sece since 1910."“Thicd, ic must be parsimonious, which means ic must use a minimum of assumptions comipared to the / amount of daca that it explains. In other words, the / model should satisfy che principle of Occam's razor, , which requires che elieination of all unessential fea- cuces of a model} ‘These principles provide only a qualitative stan- acd, because there is no objective way of quantifying power or parsimony. Nevertheless, differear models can usually be compared againse one another on the basis of shese principles. The best models are useful, simple, and eleganc, but they necessarily are simpliti- cations and idealizations of reality and should not be confused wich “Teuch,” wich a capical “T.” ‘A useful model geed nos be right or “True,” it need only be testafile, which means ic muse include the potential for being dispcayen, Disproof of 2 mo- del can be absolute, because in principle, a single ob servation can show that che model does aoc work. ossible,co, guarantee. ¥ be “an inconsistent observation, In practice, of its, scientists tend to rationalize away one incon- sistent observation by questioning the methods or ability of the obsecves, or by simply ignoring ic as'an unexplained anomaly. So disproof of a hypothesi cypically is accepted only aftec the buildup of a signif icant quantity of anomalous observations, and on mocé entrenched the hypothesis initially is, the moce resistanc scientists typically are as a group to accept ing its demise The restrictions on what constitute an acceptable model are quite severe, and they impose a stringent limic on the sorcs of questions chat scienciscs can legic- imately pose and thac science can be expected co answer. Thus, science is nor an approach that can be used ro answer all questions about everything. Foc example, most moral, religious, artistic, and legal questions simply ace not within the realm of science Investigating such issues requires a different system of * inguicy and thoughe, which should be understood to coexist wich che scientific philosophy rather than co F compece with ie. % ‘A theory is a model or hypothesis that has gained moce general acceprance through repeaced verifi- cation. A law.is a basic theory chac has been shown so often co be consistent with obsecvation that ics validicy is no longer in secious question. To be cegacded as a T Aker the English philosophee William of Oceam (o¢ Ockham), 1280=1349, hu expcersd ie sus “mulkipliiey oughe noe co be posiced wiehowe necessity.” iat, Bean coe Ne eee ioe wis ee Faw, moreover, a proposition muse generally deat with the very foundacions of our scientific understanding. Even laws, however, can change. Alchough Newson's faws of motion, for example, ace still useful for many everyday applications, they do noc work at velocities approaching che speed of light; for these conditions they have been supplanced by Einstein's theory of relacivicy. “ — Deductive and Inductive'Science Scientific inquiry proceeds by two distince methods, the inductive (or Bacoaian) method, named for the English philosopher Sir Francis Bacon (1561~ 1626), who first espoused it, and the madel-deductive, (or Darwinian).mechod, named after the English nacucal- ist Charles Darwin (1809-1892), who championed and practiced ic. The Baconian method involves the collection of observations without regard to theory, in the expectation that explanations and nacural laws will become apparent from the organization and syn, thesis of large amounts of daca. The Dacwinian me-~" thod presumes thae the scientist can devise a model that accounts for a set of observacions. The model is then used to make predictions about natuce, which thea must be tested by comparing the predictions against objective observation of nature. By a continu- al iterative process of devising models, testing them through prediction and observarion, modifying chem to eliminate inconsistencies between prediction and observation, and further testing, a model emerges thac accounts well for the observations. The Baconian method is intended to provide a siscemacic and objective approach to scientific study. Although ies applicacion results in che amassing of large quantities of data, as a system of scientific inves- tigation ic is ulcimately inefficiene, as ir lacks a means of deciding what daca are important to gather. The data that could be gathered are in principle unlimited, and we could easily miss a critical observation simply because ic never occurted to us that ic might be useful. This problem is embodied in the common expression, “The eye seldom sees wwhac che, mind does not ai sipace.” The historian and philosopher of science, Thomas H. Kuba, expressed the problem wich che Baconian mechod as follofes Since any description inust be partial, the typical natural history often omits from its immensely umstantial accounts just those details that acer scientists will find sources of important illumination. (Kubn, 1970) impossible co make a sec of obsecva- ical phenomena thac are sutficiendly com- tert 249co: plete co serve all the needs of fucure investigators. In Addition, despite the best cffocts to che concracy, every sclentise’s work is affected to some excent by the pre}- idices.of the society, including its scienciscs, che limics of cucrent knowledge, and the brain’s limicacions in dealing with the unfamiliac.. Nevertheless, the Baconian method is useful in che early stages of seudy of a subject when data gach- ering helps define the field and provides the basis on = Bese} which preliminary models can be formulated. Exam- #8 {ples of the application of this method in geology in- clude the reconnaissance mapping of a poorly known area, and the accumulation of basic information that ‘generally follows the application of a new technology co the study of some aspect of the earth. The strength of the Darwinian method is that it deg (provides a syseem for focusing the seach for data. wiews The method works best if one can invent more chan fone model to account for a given set of observations science, This aspect of science eaa never be taugie iy 42 teacher co a student, because we cannot teach how to get good ideas or how co find a flash of insight The imporeance of chis aspect of science also means that science can never totally be systematized in any epistemology? The drive of curiosity, the flash of insight, che leap of intuition, are the expressions of a process chac we must accept as a pact of ovr humaq hacure, bur one thae we do not as yet understand and cannat predict or conteol. Ic is che factor that unites the worle of scientises wich all the creative endeavors of human beings, whether the resuls of the creativity be a scientific hypothesis, a piece of music, a dance, a painting or a piece of sculpture, a poem, a novel, or a play, an invention, or any resulc of che myriad of cre- ative human activities that lead us in new dicections and to new expression and understanding. For scientists, however, the results of this creative process must be passed through the filser of rational syidgere because one thezeby avoids the common pitfall of be-Afwighieetive analysis before they can become an accepted Meas coming psychologically wedded co a parriculac model and ignoring inconsistent data that would tend to refuce it, We call this cechnique the method of multiple, working hypotheses, The predictions of a model, or z conteadictory peedictions of two differenc models, di- sdiwely rect che scientist's attention toward gathering specific data that are critical for the Sialaion oF Tie models. Even if an individual scientist does not succeed in devising multiple hypotheses, however, ochers in the scientific community will, and fiecce arguments in 15" the scientific litecacuce beeween proponents of diffec- i ‘ent models are not unusual. The net.cesult is that this method is more efficient at focusing our investiga- tions and improving ouc undecscanding, Ic is a common but egregious misundersranding of.scientists and the scientific method to believe char scientists are strictly cational and unintuitive individu. als, and that science progresses only by the applica- ac | sion of secice principles of logic and rational thought. aype\ The Baconian method, for example, does not specify € Se how to carty our the process of induction char leads Jez from the amassed daca to nacural laws and an under 2°)" — standing of nature; and the Darwinian method also provides no method for the development of kypo- theses or models that ace cequiced for the process of prediction and esting against observation. In the end, we must admic that boch processes rely on the aon: + “ational and non-logical creativiey, imagination, and. incuition of che scientist, and that. therefoce chese | / “scientific methods” are rot enticely an objective and rational approach to understanding our surroundings. } In fact, this non-cacional and non-logical part of the scientific process is crucial to the progress of 250 INTERLUDE Bare of the body of scientific knowledge and under- standing. The filtering peocess requires chat predic tions be derived from che models and chat those pre- dictions be tested by comparing them against the ‘objective observation of nature. Those hypotheses that fal che tests ace ultimately discarded. This is the part of the scientific process that is rational and log cal and that usually receives the most attention. [cis the part chac ceachers ery co teach, that students try 10 leara, and that philosophers try co systematize. But (ss irony i& thar this part of the scientific process is only the part chat comes gfterhe fundamental insight, land ic is really, the insighe thas, ig,she core Gf the procéss. In the final analysis, che practice of science isthe practice of phenomenology: it is.a practice of findi Wwhae works as,aa,explanation of nature, not of find- nat ig WTewe,” whatever chat may be. If we find a model that works consistently, we use it to improve our ability to predict and control our surroundings; if the model does not work, we discacd ic and look for 2 beeeer one. ic is ulcimately a totally practical and utli- tarian endeavor. Questions about how any scientific endeavor should or should not be accomplished, oF how ic was o¢ was nor accomplished, of what the sig- nificance of the cesults might be in teers of “Truth” ace philosophical in nature and thus fall wiehin a dif ferent eealm of inquiry ‘J Epemulogy bs he besach of philosophy chet consi Ikqgue uae we hour and achat the limits of our Knowing a.PAR The Normal Progress of Science and Scientific Revolution Scientific disciplines, according co T. S. Kuhn, undergo a cecognizable pattern of evolution. Most natural sci- ences begin with an initial Baconian phase of develop- ment in which obsecvations ace collected essentially at random without much regard co their significance or cheie relationship to one anoches. We might call this che immature stage of development of a science (Kuhn calls ic the pre-hiscoric stage). As che number of obser- vations increases, eventually someone synthesizes into a fiest comprehensive model, which Kuhn calls a paradigm, With che creation of a paradigm, the discipline enters its mature stage (Kuhn calls ic the his- toric stage), and further progeess occurs primacily by che application of the Darwinian, or model-deductive, method of investigation. ‘The pacadigm is a frainework of hypotheses and methods that constrains the questions that-may be posed and thar is assumed to be correct when obser- vations are interpreted or other models ace proposed. If observations contradict che predictions of a model, {chen the model is modified within the constraints of iche accepted paradigm. 4 ‘The normal progress of science can be incerrupe- (ed either by the amassing of many facts that cannot be { explained by the reigning paradigm or by the applica- tion of a new technology to an existing field. The first situation generally arises as investigation proceeds in greater and geeater derail and more and more ir stances of incompatibility with the existing paradigm accumulate. Ac first, the inconsistencies ace few and are regacded as either errors or anomalies. Eventually, however, so. many inconsistent observations accumu- lace chae the old paradigm becomes progressively less credible and a crisis develops in the discipline. ‘The second sicuation arises when a new technol- ogy is developed thac provides information of a kind not available before. This happened, for example, when rechgiques.for che. radiqmerric dating. of cocks were, developed, and-when, new. geophysical. iastesy- menes and. computers pecmitred. investigation, of, che ocean floor in, great detail, The first applications of a new techrialogy often resemible aa immacure phase of scientific developmenc. Daca are collecied according co the Baconian method, and practitioners of the technique measure just abour everything they can gee their hands on. This process continues until the data thus amassed ace synthesized and compaced with che currently accepted paradigm. If the new daca do nox fic weil with the paradigm, che usefulness of the para digm is impaired and again a crisis develops. When a crisis arises in a scientific Field, che inade- quacy of the old paradigm becomes clear, but no new idea is present to explain the contradictions. Even; tually.a new, synthesis occurs, often initiated by an intuitive leap of understanding or.a flash of insight, Scientists erect a new pacadigm radically different from the old one chat explains the contradictions as well as many additional obsecvations. This process! se leads to a whole host of new corollaries, new ways of| a looking ae nacural phenomena, and the posing of new} questions. ‘At first, many scientists resist the mew model, but as its success in explaining the observations increases, che resistance crumbles. Such an event constitutes a scientific revolution. Icis followed by a “mopping-up” phase of normal scientific progress during which old facts are fit into the new paradigm, new obsecvations are made to est ics corollacies, and new hypotheses are erected and cested within the constraints of the new paradigm The Development of Plate Tectonics: A Scientific Revolution The development of the theory of place tectonics pro- vides an excellenc example of a scientific revolution as Kuhn meane the term, Although many books have been written about the subject (see Menard, 1985; Uyeda, 1978; Takeuchi et al, 1967; Hallam, 1973; Marvin, 1973; Glen, 1982), it is nevertheless worth discussing briefly here, for ic illustraces the stages of the developmenc of a science chat Kuhn has our lined, and it also serves to introduce our discussion of rectonic history. ‘The accompanying table shows the development through time of many of the major ideas that led to the place cectonic revolution. Time progcesses from oldest events ac the borcom to youngest events at the top, wich the daces shown in the leftmost column. The lower pac: of the table contains five columas, each showing the major discoveries wichia a parti- culac field of study. The fields ace labeled accoss the bottom of the cable. Gray areas across the columns indicate syntheses involving cwo or more fields. The fase columa, labeled Developmenc Seatus, indicases the stages of development of the science of geology before, ducing, and after the cevolusion, which occurred becween 1960 and 1970.(EACH RECOMBINING FARTS OF OLO ONES BELOW? CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT OF PLATE TECTONIC MODEL 1 Possible New Tectonic Subdivisions Geometry of place Tectonics of plate | Collisions, | margin’ geologic cory ave ecccoris and Plage recconies on othe planets DEVELOP MENT 1950 hin seimens locearis exploration Iw ease kepoersehy iosros Daee| feeonice STATUS cers. 5-0) | tch.9) | “(crs 10-10) fea) 1395 1990 ” a 1985 New pad 3 1980 36 197s 22 1970 ey Tigo] Cane toclaton sescalon abd are ob nie Tals da phreccading onkemed weit Eerste at pint amiceap |" z 1965 | Metanges -7 Kichorphere 2 Sanat ls 5 Sy iy of on ig S| Nag Reel me [Fost | age, 3 ae) onmineil dita] Paicmsgneie [UWS freer |S tlicn n “ Low ela ses ie _ wsetelen eo - eee es 93s | Die wae inc ac wade phe eos rin cence Ee Nowth American 1945 | eyclnes Moves roe vf 1940 lew i -eadarsonae i aay ayes Hiss cad yocbass ae 1935 a ) [Fecogene « 1930 | sore Secinmanns — |eensve gavig ipsing seamie | ary problems ‘ay SPECK — | aarceeecdionof || ote revels rose iapee is 1925 — a be 1920 ye? + isis onset dl [Coremancte poesia ypotess ieee 1910 agree Mohocesiie evened arse |scoocinaisy 1905 | Seaman's fini —dcep 2 old vee sediment 1900 | Geospnetint mode CROCE [ARNE ce SAGRETEN x ceoLoGy & ce stiventat | “Weate- ceosvacunes | reves ouer Macnersa | SeIsMoL0cY le staTUS OLD GEOLOGIC / CEOPHISICAL SUBDIVISIONS a MER GAA Tina te Gtabong Com nel oo 282 INTEREUDEThe Old Paradignt Icis convenient co begin our account around 1900. At che tura of the century, geology was exclusively the study of cocks on land. Ie was a macuce discipline uni- fied by the laws of evolution, uniformicarianism, and stratigraphy. In steuccuce and tectonics, che principal efforts were co understand the characteristics and causes of deformation observed in the world’s moun- tain syscems, principally che Appalachian and Cor- dilleran syscems of North America, the Alpine belt chrough southern Eucope, and the Caledonide belt of the British Isles and Scandinavia. Despice the deformation evident in these oro- genic belts, che continents were believed co be essen- tially scationary on the Earth's surface, the.so;called, fixisc hypothesis, Accepted motions of the crust were predominantly vertical, as evidenced by marine rocks in high mountains and covering large areas of con- sineats. The driving force for such motions was thought to be isoszasy, This theory—originally pro- posed in 1865 by George Airy, the British Astco: nomer Royal, to explain gravity measurements in India—had ceceived considerable subsequent support from the studies of Clarence Dutton in che western United States. = ‘Qkogenicbeles (column 1) were explained ac cording to the geosyaclinal hyporhesis, which yeas for- uulagedLsby.che American. James Hall ip, 1857, and finally was,accepted, by. skeptics 39, s geosynclinal hypothesis supplanted the previously Scares ata aparece ec et mountains of che Earch weee in effect the result of the wrinkling of the Eacth’s crust as che radius of the Earth decreased. The geosynclinal hypothesis ascribed | mountain buildiag or orogeny to the development of} a subsiding linear trough containing thick, shallow-_ water sedimencary rocks along both sides of the teough (miogeosynclines) and deeper water sedimen- tary and volcanic rocks in che center (eugeosynclines). Following the deposition of these thick sequences, defocmacion occucred, with the central rocks of the eugeosyactine becoming the most highly defocmed and mecamorghosed, and che flanking rocks of che miogeosyncline being more mildly deformed and metamorphosed. Deformation was believed to be symmecrical, wich cheuscing of all che rocks in boch directions away from the center over the Flanking unde- formed continental placforms. ‘The developmenc of such chick deposits of shal- low-water sediments clearly required some form of isoscacic compensation. Continents, however, were thoughe co be fundamencally fixed, and although very Hicele was known aboue the oceanic crust, i¢ was con- sidered to be as anciene as the continents when ic was thought abous acall. A major weakness of this riodel was that chere was no explanation for what caused geosynclines co develop and subsequently co deform, a situation chat was later described as a theory of mountain building with the mountain building lef out! Ac this time, marine geology (column 2) and geo-" physics (columns 4 and 5) were immature disciplines. ‘The broad ouclines of the topography of the oceanic Aloor were known as a result of wire-line soundings ducing oceanogcaphic expeditions of the late nine- ceench cencury, but many features of the oceanic ccust were simply unknown. Studies in geophysics (magne- tism, paleomagnetism, and seismology) were ia their infancy. TheErench, geophysicist B. Beunhes ¢ cred reversed bul 1803, Ths. xyesywwas.confirmed-in. 1928. by che, Japanese geo- eee ae ere race eae in Japan were eversely magnetized, and he proposed that the Earch’s magnetic field had been reversed in polacicy during the Quaternary. In,1909, the Yugo- slav seismologise Mohorovicie discovered the sharp increase in P-wave velocity at the base of the crust {the M discontinuity or Moho named for him), and in A914 che German seismologist B. Gurenberg first rec- ‘ognized the core-mancle structure of the Earth. There was no unifying model of the Earch in existence at this time. Initially, marine geology and geophysics developed with very litle influence from, or effect ugon, the problems in continencal geology. , Early Problems ‘Soon after the cucn of the century, problems with Hall's fixise geosyncline paradigm began co crop up. tn 1905, the Geeman geologic Guxay Sxinsana see ognized the ubiquitous association of serpentinites, pillow’ lavas, and cadiolacian cherts in the Alpine bele. This association became known as Steiamann’s trini ty in the liceracuce published in the English language, J but Europeans recognized ic as che ophiolice suite, Steinmana proposed that the sediments were laid down in deep water over rapidly subsiding continen- ‘al placforms. The serpentinites and pillow lavas were thought co be magmatic intrusions and exteusions, respectively, in these deep-water regions. This recog- nition led to the European view thar geosynclines could form in deep water between continents, rachec than in shallow water on continents, as Hall pro- posed. Sceiamana’s observations received little atten~ tion in che English-speaking world uncil three decades laces, when they played a role in an early accempr by che American geologise H. H. Hess to synthesize land and marine geology, as described below,Another problem with the geosyncline model __ was that it could not explain the very large amounts of shortening exhibited by the nappes in the Alps (hundeeds of kilometers by some calculations). This led che Austrian geologists Ampferec and Hammer in 19,11, co formulace che hypothesis of Verschluchung, the downsucking or subduction, of the Eucopean platform beneath che Alpine geosyncline. This idea was one of the first signs that the fixise hypothesis was not adequate, although it had lice influence out- side the German-speaking geologic community. A direct challenge to the fixist model came’ in 1915 with, Wegener's hypothesis of concinencal_dcife (Columa 3). He maincained that all the continencs were originally joined in a single continenc (Pangea) and had drifted apact to give the present distribucion. Wegener argued that continental drift not only explained the fir of coastlines around the Aclantic but also was superior co the fixist model in explaining the distribution of ancient coal and glacial deposies, as well as faunal and floral provinces around che Adlantic Ocean. Wegener's.hypothesig created a great deal of interest worldwide, but ie was received with skep- ticism by many American geologists. The climax of the controversy came in 1926 in at @ meeting of che American Association of Petroleum Geologists in New York, at which continental drift was the focus of debace and Wegener himself was present. Although 2 number of speakers either favored drift or advocated an open mind, the consensus was co ceject the hypo- thesis on several grounds, some of which seem quice spurious in retrospect. Wegener was a meteorologist and therefore not a part of the geologic establishment {a scientifically poor reason, but sociologically nor aa uncommon reaction to outsiders); he could come up with no convincing deiving mechanism to explain how continents moved through the oceanic’cust; his hypothesis was considered nonuniformitarian; and the geosynclinal theory was considered satisfactory (despice the fact that no convincing deiving mecha- nism had been proposed for this process either). Furthecmore, the Beitish geophysicise. H.Jeffceyshad supposedly proved that the transmission of elastic seismic waves chrough the Earth-meant that the slow inelastic motion required by drift was impossible. ‘After the New York meeting, continencal deift as a viable model was essencially dead in Norch America and mach of Eucope. Ic was still populac in the sourh~ ‘ech hemisphere, however, espoused most vigorously by the South African geologist.A, DuToigin his book Our Wandering Continents, published ia 1937, Con- tiencal drift would noc be cevived as a major force wwatil the lace 1950s aad eacly.1960s, when ic eeceived support from paleomagnecism, (column 4). 254 INTERLUDE In che eacly 19305, the Ducch geophysicise Fa? Vening-Meinesz began a study of gravity at sea! that tecame one of the fest marine geophysical studies co have repercussions for models of continental tecton- ics. Vening- Meinesz and his team made the sucprising discover that deepsea sence in the Caribbean and in Indonesia weee associated With negative gravi- ty anomalies. Ic seemed that isostasy was violaced in these areas and chac something was holding the crust down, These observations gave rise to the concepc of a downbuckling of the crust into the mantle, sub- Eequantly ealled’s tectogene, chat developed in ces- ponse co horizoncal compression. The British geolo- gist Acchur Holmes proposed chat a tectogene formed in response to a downgoing convection currens in the mantle. The American geophysicist D. L. Griggs mo- deled this mechanism experimentally in 1939. Verting-Meinesz and Holmes were among the firse to suggest that forces other than isostasy were impor- tant in tectonics, and the idea that convection occur- red in the mantle was not at all consistence with a fix- ise motion of the Each, ‘At about the same time, in 1928, the Japanese seismologise K. Wadati recognized that earthquake sources beneath Japan ace located along an inclined planar zone thae extends from the trench east of Japan and dips westward under che islands, providing yet another problem shat had no simple explanation in the fixise model. Early Synthesis In an eaclt atvempt ac synchesis, Hess proposed at the 1937 Moscow Incecnational Geological Congress the hypothesis (later published in 1939) thae the tecto- gene was related to geosynclines and.co orogeny. In a study of Appalachian peridocites, Hess thought he could see two beles of peridotice approximately 120 km’ apare. He proposed that these peridotites were magmas intruded at che margins of @ tectogene (geo- syncline) at the onses of the orogenic phase of geosyn- clinal developmenc bue not ducing later stages in che orogeny. “Fike measurements hed co be done below wave base because the seedlerations from normal oxean swell far exceed che size of most (gravity anomalies, and for Bis work in the Caribbean, Vering: Meinese borrowed a surplus submarine from the U.S. Navy. OF several ceulses, Venieg:Meinesg cook with him the youss Ameccan. geologist Hay. Hes Hess puspoccedly cecrived # ‘eserve commission in the US. Navy eo satily Navy eegulations hae only on officer cuuld give oedecs «0 crew members, thus ‘nabling the sclenific ceart& give diceetonal instruceions dicecely to thehelisnen,be . oe 6 ay Hess's ideas ceceived little aetention largely because ac chat time he had not yet buile up a cepucs~ ‘ion and was in a junior position in the gealogic com- munity (again a scientifically poor excuse, but socio logically a common phenomenon®), but also possibly because the geologic community was noc yet pre- paced co accept radical ideas. He published an update Of the same article in 1955, after his reputacion was Ficmly established, and it was widely influencial Marine Geology and Geophysics and the Developing Crisis Although World War II inteccupted much of che nor- mal research of the scientific communicy, ewo inven tions early in the war years proved co be erucial co subsequent oceanographic investigation: sonas, which allowed the determination of ocean depths by timing the echo of sound waves off the bottom of the oceans and radar, which eventually enabled ships co dever- mine their position at sea more accurately. During the was, millions of miles of bathymetric profiles of unprecedented accuracy were collected, particularly in the Pacific by US. Navy ships.” Hess compiled and synthesized these results in two landmazk papers that appeared in 1946 and 1248 and in which many of the detailed topographic characteristics of the western Pacific Ocean basin were evident for the first time, luding-such featuces as the tue dimensions of the tcenches off Japan, the Marianas, and the Philippines. ‘After World War Il, marine geologic work began in earnest in the United Stares and Great Britain. U.S. efforts cencered around che oceanographic insticu- tions of Scripps in La Jolla, California; Woods Hole in Woods Hole, Massachusetts; and che Lamont (later Lamoat:Doherty) Geological Observatory of Columbia University in New York. Bricish efforts centered around the team of E. Q. Bullacd and M. N. Hill at Cambridge. Although most wock concentrat- ed in the North Adlandic and North Pacific, ic was worldivide in covecage. This new work coincided swith the development of a whole aréay of sophisticat- ed new equipment, including computers, that enabled tito onlin Ties absecoed many years later that ie was 8 cactcal etcor for a young upstart scien eo sttempe 4 major synthesis wichout fest tstablishing his ac her epucaiou in x mare conventional field * During che wae, Hess served in che Navy, evencully citing co he command of an attack transport, the USS. Cape Jobnston. One ‘fhe maoy stores thac circulaced wboue Hess wat thac he an the depth sounder continuously, even in deep wate, withour cegacd for posible nearby hostile submorines. . the rapid analysis of data to provide information such as gravity and magnetic anomalies and earthquake ocations and focal mechanisms. With burgeoning knowledge about che ocean, basins, more and more data seemed to have no rela tionship to the fixisc and geosyncline paradigm. This sicuation is not surprising, for the paradigm was based solely on continental geology, and the new informa~ tion was coming from the heretofore unknown ocean basins. The explosion in knowledge as a result of the advent.of.marine.geophysies, is an excellent example of the Baconian method of inquiry that commonly fol- ows the introduction of a new technology. That the new knowledge caused problems for che reigning par- adigm is also a classic example of a crisis brought on by the application of a new cechnology. “The Scripps seismologist R. W. Raite soon found that the oceanic crust was unifocmly chin, approxi- mately 5 kim everywhere. In addition, he and his col- leagues found that the sediment cover was much chin- ner than expected, if the oceans were as old and permanent as the fixist model implied, Workers ac Lamont-Doherry, led by Maurice Ewing, soon con- Fiemed the seismic measurements in the Adancc. In the lace 1950s, they also reported the existence of a rife valley along the axis of a world-girdling mountain range, or mid-ocean ridge system, that was locaced in the middle of the world’s oceans and stood 2 to 2.5 kum above the ocean floor. The rift valley, they argued, ‘was 2 continuation of the well-known East African Rift on land, and it indicated that the ocean basins ‘were undergoing extension. Tn the lace 1950s and early 12605, the pace of ew discoveries and problems accelerated, Scientists at Scripps, such as H. W. Menacd, discovered fractuce zones thousands of kilomecers long in the crust of the Pacific Ocean, and similar zones were found in the Atlantic Ocean. A. D. Raff arid R. G. Mason, and V. Vacquier, published restles of magnetic surveys off the west coast of the Uniced Scaces that revealed a series of puzzling scriplike magnetic anomalies chat wended north-south and were offset tens to hundreds of kilo- metecs along the newly discovered fracture zones. Sceuccural models to explain these anomalies involved complex folding and faulting, but no evidence for such complex oceanic crustal stcuctuce was forch~ coming from marine seismic results. Sccipps workers dlso discovered thae the ridge axes exhibited heat flow two or more times higher chan the average for che rest Of the oceanic crust and that trenches showed low heat flow. In the 1950s, paleomagnetism ended ics isolaced developmenc and concributed to the growing crisis when P. M.S. Blackece ond his colleagues E. leving and $. K, Runcocn in England recognized thae Europe favedlude | 255and Norch America had different polar wander paths. “The simplesc explanation was that che continents had moved celative co one another, a major blow to the Rixist paradigm. Meanwhile, seismology was progressing relative ly independently. But its discoveries about the struc: * tuce of the Earth's interior neverthcless laid importane groundwork for che field's subsequene major contri- butions to che crisis. In.1943, Gucenberg discovered the existence of mountain roots, confieming the theo~ ry of isostasy; in the lace 1940s.and early 1950s, the ‘American seismologist Hugo Beniofl.recognized the presence of dipping seismic zones around the Pacific extending deep into che mantle, conficming Wadatis ‘earlier discovery under Japan; and in the lace 1950s, Gucenberg discovered a zone of low seismic velocity at approximarely 100-km depth in the mantle. Thus, che lace 1950s was a time of geowing crisis in Earth science. Remarking on the new and unex- plained data coming in from the ocean basin re- search, Hess wrote in 1955 that “some vital ingredi- encis lacking.” : The Australian cectonicist 8... Carey tried to provide this missing ingredient in 1958 with an im- pressive worldwide synthesis. He accepted drift away from the mid-ocean ridges and proposed many basic tecconic relationships that have subsequently been confirmed. Carey carefully consteucted maps of the Earch on a spherical table and cried co show that the continents fit together much as Wegener had pro- posed. He argued forcefully for Earth expaasion (an increase in the Earth's diameter) as the driving mech anism, an unpopular concept that hampered wide spread acceptance of his views Synthesis and Revolution Jolution began in.1960 with the circulation by Hess of 2 manuscript entitled, “Evolution. of Qeean inst’ (published in 1962 as History of Ocean Basins}. in i, he argued chat the ocean crust was young and was cceated over a rising limb of a mantle convection cell. He accepted the paleomagnetic evi- dence for polae wander, thereby accepting Wegener's hypothesis (shown in the table as the end of the boundary becween column 2, marine geology and geophysics, and columa 3, continental drift). The pre- prine caused considerable excitement and spawned 2 series of companion papecs by other workers, in one of which R z, coined the term. seafloor, spreading., ‘Meanwhile, wock by A. Cox, R. Doell, and G. B. Daleymple on volcanic cocks in che western United States produced the staccling cesult thac Earch’s mag- netic field had cevecsed nor once but sevecal cimes in 236 INTERLUDE the past several million years, and they publishec’ a! magnetic reversal time scale. Thus Brunhss'’s and Macuyama's findings were conficmed. In 1963, the next imporcant synthesis came inde: pendently from L. W. Morley. in Canada and from F. J. Vige and D, H. Macthews,in Cambridge, England. They proposed chat seafloor spceading, by acting es- sentially like 2 tape recorder, preserved a contiquous record of the polarity reversals in Earch’s magnetic field and thereby accounted for the puzzling strips of alcecnately normally and reversely magnetized ocean ic eeuse chac are symmetrically accayed abous che mid- ocean ridges.® : The years 1965 and 1966 were climactic for marine geology aad geophysics. The Vine-Matthews- Morley hypothesis was confirmed by daca from all the oceans, much of which had been amassed by the team ac Lamont-Doherty under the dizection of Maucice Ewing. Ic became clear chat the magnetic anomalies off the west coast of the United States were produced by soceading ridges located near the North American continental margis ‘Ac this cime the fist xesults also became available from the compucerized Worldwide Standardized Seis- mic Nerwork {WWSSN), which had begun operation in 1960. These records showed that earthquakes along the fracture zones in the" Atlantic Ocean were Confined to the segment between the offser ridge crests. Thus, fracture zones were divided into active and inactiye portions. Furchermore, first-motion stud ies of che earthquakes showed that the shear sense of the fractures is opposice to the sense of offser of the ridges. In 1965, the.accive parts beoween ridge crests were christened tcansform -fauls..by the «Canadian geophysicise J.T, Wilsog. Also in 1965, the Cam- bridge group published a computer-generaced fit of the continental margins bordering the Atlantic Ocear showing chat the fic was very good indeed? Torley avicle was cejected by eo intecnacional jouenals; the reviewer for one of them stated char che idea was suitable for Cockeal parcy conversation but hardly publishable as 2 sciensfic Soper One of the journals that rejecced Mocley’s paper subse uenely published che Vine sad Matthews accte, Morley's version ia noc appear unel a yeue late, in 1984, in a less prominent Canadian publication. Puce of his original communication appe2* in Glan, 1982, p. 2 9 Ones rads that Bulla organized his computer sealysis of the Adlantc fi in exponse eo H. Jeffrey's comment, a¥eer ture by 5. We Ca ‘Carey had noc proved each sisted. Jefieys argued thac there was a 13" dd oue thae he was ealking abet a fic of the fan the edges of the enncinents (approximated coastines, eth by the SUD Aachom conser)As 1966 drew co a close, the Geological Society of America held its annual convention in San Fran- cisco. Cox, Doell, Dalrymple, and Vine gave keynore addcesses. The meeting marked the general accep tance of seafloor spreading and continental drift by most American marine geologists and geophysicists, although noc yee by considerable numbers of Eacch scientists whose research was land-based. The old pacadigm, however, was crumbling. Meanwhile, events wece moving rapidly in seis- mology. The American seismologists B. Isacks, L. Sykes, and J. Oliver of Columbia University were scudying the transmission of earthquake waves in the “Tonga-Kermadec region of the South Pacific. They discovered a 100-km-thick slab of mantle having an. abnormally high seismic'velocity thac starved in froac of the arc near the trench and extended down inco the mantle under the acc along the zone of earthquakes ‘Transmission of seismic energy was particularly effi- cient within the slab, and this property was correlated with the high stcengeh and density, and thecefore the fow temperature, of the material. Subsequently, they found similac dipping slabs beneath all western Pacific island arcs. All the fiest motions of earchquakes in the dipping seismic zones were consistent with these slabs moving downward beneath the island arcs. This was the first recognition of the role of subduction as complementary to the spreading ac ocean ridges, and provided a plausible explanation for the concentca~ tion of earthquakes beneath island arcs reported earli- er by Wadati and Benioff. ‘Themap. of the world’s, seismiciry.from 1960. t0, 1968 published by the American seismologists M. Barazangi and L. Dorman in 1969 showed a pro- nounced conceateation of seismicity in shallow zones along the mid-ocean ridges and in planar zones dip- ping beneath island arcs to depths of up co 700 km. This map made ie clear how recconically active che Earth is and how the preponderance of the deforma- tion is concentrated along very narrow beles. The map stunningly conficmed the idea that cectonics on Eacch is characterized by .the rigid-body motion of lacge plates on a sphere and chat deformation and seismic activity are concentrated along the boundaries of the plates where chey incecace wich one anothec. The relative motion of nondeforming plates on 2 sphere became che focus of studies by D. McKenzie and R. L. Packer and by J. Morgan. They showed. chat the relative motion becween two segments of the Earch’s cust could be accounted for by rotation about a pole common to the two segments. Trans: form faules should be small circles about the pole of roracion, and the care of motion should be propor- tional othe distance from the pole of roracion. Moegan’s article was the more general of che ewo. He noted thac the great fractuce zones of the Pacific vere noc seraighe bur curved, and he hypothesized that they could resule from motion about a pole of roca- tion. He showed chac the race of new crust generation in the Aclancic was consistenr with constanc angular velocity about a pole of rotation, which implies 2 linear velociey thac increases from zeco at the pole co a maximum ac 90° to the pole, and chat the pole for spreading on che mid-Atlantic cidge was near Iceland, Morgan’s article was published ia March 1968, togecher with a number of articles by the Lamont: Dohercy geoup, notably J. R. Hiertaler, W. Pitman, and others; these articles extended marine magnetic anomalies to all oceans and extended the magnetic reversal time scale to che late Cretaceous. Later in 1968, cwo landmark articles appeared, one by B. Isacks, J. E. Olives, and L. R. Sykes, enticled “Seis- mology and the New Global Tectonics,” and the other by X. Le Pichon, entitled “Sea Floor Spreading and Contigencal, Drifs,” Isacks ec al. sammarized che evidence for the existence of segments of the outer portion of the Eacth in relative motion with respect to ‘one another, based upon the location of earthquakes and the transmission of seismic waves. This article broughe seismology (colama 5) fully into che place tectonic revolution, Le Pichon used the magnetic ano- maly stripes on the ocean floor and the magnetic re- versal history to give a more quantitative estimate of the relative positions of the continencs ac past times. Thus, by che end of 1968, practically the entice North American and British geophysical and marine geological communities were converted co the new view of the Earch. Although the application of chis new view to land geology was not yet apparent, geo- logists rapidly began co see the implications of sea- floor spreading and plate cectonics for continental geology. The climax of this new insighe perhaps ceme ac the Geological Society of America Penrose Con- ference ac Asilornae, California, ocganized by William R. Dickinson in December .1962. At, this meecing, geologists and geophysicists from around the world convened c0,exploce the application of plate tecconics fo continencal geology.and orogeny, During the dis- Eussions, it became evident that plate tectonic process es could account not only for recent tectonic activiey but also for ancienc continental geology. Thus, the his- rorical record preserved ia the continents was incoc- porated inco the synthesis. For example, ait ophiolites were recognized as fragments of oceanic eeust and mantle, some formed at spreading cencers; geosyn- lines wigh che miogeosynclires equivale the sedimenc accumulations along passive continencal maegins and cee eugeosynelines largely equivalent «0 the sedimenes and voleaaies of the deep ocean basingand istand arcs; and che convergence of places and the collision of continental crustal fragatencs accounted for orogenic secuccuces, che cectonie juxtaposition of shallow-water and deep-water deposits, aad the pro- Uuction of igneous and metamorphic rocks ia vol- canie ares and orogenic zones. Ie soon became clear chat continental dete was not a single episode in Earth's history buc an inherene and continuous process and that Wegener's Pangea hhad been assembled from an earlier group of dispers- ed continental fragments. Thus, Wegener's hypothesis vwas only the last act in a long play, and continencal drife was shown to be @ uniformitatian process, con- ceary to the assections of Wegener's critics in 192 The barriees separating the various fields of geological investigation finally broke down, and plate cecconic theory became the new paradigm for all of geology. Geology as a Mature Science As indicated on the right side of che table, geology as a whole has evolved from 2 fraymericed co a unified mature science as a resulz of the plate tectoni¢ revolu- ‘ion. Research in tectonics is now lacgely in a phase of “mopping-up.” The new paradigm is generally ac- cepted, and progress in our understanding of the Eacch’s tectonics is achieved through che process of ocmal science. The acceprance of the new pacadigm.has opened new questions for.research in tecconics, and cesearch, efforts. have..ccystallized around topics chat .ace” mackedly different from those,that preceded the.revo- lution, Major divisions involve the geometry and “seophvee op Yate He gedign s trk gett s AER ae nee RR: kinematics of place motion, che history of plate mo tions, the tectonics and geology of place margins « tectonics and geology of plate interiors, the processes of collision, the plate tectonic interpretation of oro- genic belts, and the mantle-core processes affecting the driving mechanism of place tectonics. Several of these divisions ace the subjects of succeeding chap- ters, as indicaced ac che cop of the table. ‘The development of the place tecconi¢ revolution shows many features of a classic scientific revolution, For land geology, the revolution consisted of 3 pro- gress feom old ideas thcough increasing problems to crisis and chen new synthesis. For macine geology and geophysics, however, the revolution was a combina- tion of exploration in previously unknown regions and the inteoduction of new technology. The field progressed from an immacure to a mature phase in ics history, with an associaced change in che mechod of investigation from Baconian to Darwinian. Because the marine world makes up most of Eacth’s surface and because so much of the cectonic action is there, for geology a3 a whole the revolution must be regar ed as proceeding from an immature co a macure stage of development. ‘The geologic community is still exploring all she ramifications of place cecconics and incocporating new ideas as problems arise, Will thece be another re- volution in Earth science? Of course we carinot ans- j wer that question. Two of the questions ae the fro tiers of research, however, ace whether the plate ceetonie process exists on other planets and whether che process itself evolved and changed through time. ‘We discuss these questions briefly in che final chapters. Additional Readings Historical Accounts Clos, H. 1953. Conversation with the Earth. New York Knopf. Cox, Ay ed. 1972, Plate Tectonics and Geomagnetic Reversals. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman .and Company. Glen, W. 1982. The Road to Jaramillo. Seantord: Stanford Univecsicy Press, Hallam, A. 1973, A Revolution ix the Earth Sciences ‘Osford: Clarendon Press. Hsii, K. J. 1986. The Great Dying, New York: Hareours, Brace, Jovanovic. Marvin, U, B. 1973. Continental Drift: The Evolution of @ Concept, Washington, D.C: Smicasoniaa Inscica- sion Press. Menard, H.W. 1996, The Ovean of Truth: A Personal History of Global Tectonics. Princecon, N.f.z Prince: on Univecsity Press Schwarzbach, M. 1996. alfred Wegener: The Fach Of Continents! Drift, Madison, Wis: Science lee. Takeuchi, H., $. Uyeda, and H. Kenamori. 1967. Debs abou the Ear: Co. Sin Francisce: Freeman, Cooper &