Sunday, October 18, 2009
I have returned
Long story short: nothing totally insane, save for driving rain and strong winds, soaking everyone to the bone. The mountain was gorgeous, there was very little science, and rather than bore everyone with a summary right now, here are a few photos:
Friday, October 16, 2009
Down the Rabbit Hole, third iteration
And so begins the annual "cardboard tube migration," played out on airplanes around the country as geologists bring their posters to the conference. These are becoming more rare, however, as cheap near-site options for large format poster-printing are making boards with a handwritten notes that say, "I left my poster in the Taxi, but here is a pencil sketch of my findings" a thing of the past.
I made it to Portland without too much trouble. I got a brief glimpse of Mt. Hood as we came in to land. The light rail system, "MAX" is quite good. Took me just about an hour to get from the airport to the hotel. I spent much of the flight going over some GSA abstracts published by the field trip leaders. I suspect that this "energy threshold" they are talking about is some attempt at bridging a gap between the gradual, uniformitarian observational evidence we geologists gather in the field, with a general "catastrophist" viewpoint that is often drawn upon to discuss YEC topics such as the flood.
I went over some possible questions - these can be difficult, because interaction with Creationists is often an exercise in rhetoric, rather than any intellectual back and forth. But, I think some questions that may generate some good discussion include focusing on observations, rather than interpretations. Also, given how poorly Austin's work was received by the scientific community, perhaps a question or two if he plans on re-analyzing the dacite from the St. Helens dome - especially now that we have a brand-new dome pushed up.
But that's all for now. Based on an idea I got from today's reading, I came up with "The Intriguing Idea of Everything! (TM)," which I plan on releasing soon. I'm sure these findings will revolutionize all of human society.
I'll leave you with a few pictures from the flight. The first is a "glory." Refracted light as a result of the observer being between the sun and a dispersed cloud of reflective, spherical droplets (e.g. a cloud):
Crank up the saturation, and you can see traces of even more rings:
I think I know why the upper left coast is always so rainy: you folks would spend your entire day just looking at the volcanoes from your windows - no work would ever get done. They are so very, very cool.
Lastly, I'm bringing my iPod, just in case the bus trip doesn't offer any good conversation. Here's my playlist:
See the previous entries here (2) and here (1). Also, a shout out to all the USGS people who have been visiting lately.
Update: Flash-forward to part four.
Update2: A brief discussion about young-Earthism at GSA
I made it to Portland without too much trouble. I got a brief glimpse of Mt. Hood as we came in to land. The light rail system, "MAX" is quite good. Took me just about an hour to get from the airport to the hotel. I spent much of the flight going over some GSA abstracts published by the field trip leaders. I suspect that this "energy threshold" they are talking about is some attempt at bridging a gap between the gradual, uniformitarian observational evidence we geologists gather in the field, with a general "catastrophist" viewpoint that is often drawn upon to discuss YEC topics such as the flood.
I went over some possible questions - these can be difficult, because interaction with Creationists is often an exercise in rhetoric, rather than any intellectual back and forth. But, I think some questions that may generate some good discussion include focusing on observations, rather than interpretations. Also, given how poorly Austin's work was received by the scientific community, perhaps a question or two if he plans on re-analyzing the dacite from the St. Helens dome - especially now that we have a brand-new dome pushed up.
But that's all for now. Based on an idea I got from today's reading, I came up with "The Intriguing Idea of Everything! (TM)," which I plan on releasing soon. I'm sure these findings will revolutionize all of human society.
I'll leave you with a few pictures from the flight. The first is a "glory." Refracted light as a result of the observer being between the sun and a dispersed cloud of reflective, spherical droplets (e.g. a cloud):
Crank up the saturation, and you can see traces of even more rings:
I think I know why the upper left coast is always so rainy: you folks would spend your entire day just looking at the volcanoes from your windows - no work would ever get done. They are so very, very cool.
Lastly, I'm bringing my iPod, just in case the bus trip doesn't offer any good conversation. Here's my playlist:
- Crazy Train, Ozzy Osbourne
- Atlantis, Donovan
- Ring of Fire, Johnny Cash
- You're not the Boss of Me, They Might be Giants
- Head Like a Hole, Nine Inch Nails
- Everybody Knows, Leonard Cohen
- Dry the Rain, Beta Band
- I Should be Allowed to Think, They Might be Giants
- Touch of Gray, Greatful Dead
- Wake me up when September Ends, Green Day
- I Know What I Know, Paul Simon
- Jai Ho, A. Rahman, Slumdog Millionaire Soundtrack
- Everybody Wants a Rock, They Might be Giants
- Brand New Day, Niel Patrick Harris, Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
- 21st Century Digital Boy, Bad Religion
- Volcano, Jimmy Buffet
See the previous entries here (2) and here (1). Also, a shout out to all the USGS people who have been visiting lately.
Update: Flash-forward to part four.
Update2: A brief discussion about young-Earthism at GSA
Weather
Hmm,
It appears that we will be getting some rain on Saturday:
If we're out there in heavy rain, I may find it hard to avoid any "diluvial" jokes...
It appears that we will be getting some rain on Saturday:
...HEAVY RAIN EXPECTED FRIDAY NIGHT AND SATURDAY...
THE HEAVIEST RAINS OF THE SEASON SO FAR ARE EXPECTED OVER THE AREA
EARLY THIS WEEKEND. THE BULK OF THE RAIN WILL FALL FROM FRIDAY
AFTERNOON THROUGH SATURDAY AS A STALLED COLD FRONT TAPS INTO
TROPICAL AIR. RAINFALL ACCUMULATIONS ARE EXPECTED TO BE GENERALLY 2
TO 4 INCHES IN THE MOUNTAINS...WITH OVER AN INCH POSSIBLE AT LOWER
ELEVATIONS.
If we're out there in heavy rain, I may find it hard to avoid any "diluvial" jokes...
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Down the Rabbit Hole, part the second
To continue the stream of thought from the other day:
(see the previous entry here)
It's clear that, while the Mount St. Helens (MSH) field trip leaders did not directly state their own viewpoints, the trip may be less sinister than it appears, especially since opening the trip to GSA members is certainly going to bias your crowd against YEC. However, I can't believe that some aspect of the trip will be used in an attempt to further YEC claims and ideas. I firmly believe this trip is a "stalking horse" of some type, although I won't get a better idea of what kind until the trip unfolds.
So what am I to do. Clearly, I can not let unfounded, and false claims go unchallenged. Everything about YEC "science" is anathema to the nature of science. It is based on misrepresentation of the data, out of context and misquoted thoughts of real scientists, and outright falsehoods. The late, great Richard Feynman wrote about pseudo-science and magical thinking in his book, "Surely you're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" where he discussed the search to measure the fundamental charge, e (about 1.6x10-19 Joules). The data were sometimes transformed or omitted to fit a preconceived notion of what the actual value should be. He termed this misuse of science as "Cargo Cult Science." It is a powerful and poignant example of how even good scientists can mislead themselves and misrepresent their work.
In short, Wikipedia describes a "Cargo Cult" as:
Creationists, and Young-Earth Creationists in particular, are an excellent example of "Cargo Cult Science." They are focused on obtaining the "material wealth" of the advanced culture (i.e. characterizing aspects of the real, physical world) through magical thinking and religion. The infuriating denial of physical evidence and easily observed facts, which makes open debate with YEC's impossible at best, is a direct result of their firm belief that their characterization of the physical world is infallible because it was intended for them by their god (and his only son).
The "Cargo Cults" recreate and imitate the technologically complex society right down to "airfields" and radios with bamboo "antennae" in hopes of persuading supernatural powers to bring the "cargo" (i.e. airplanes, wealth, etc.) to them. YEC's go through some, though importantly, not all of the "rituals" used by scientists in hopes of characterizing the physical world according to their world view. I'm not going to go into any details about how they abuse science to fit their desires, but a short browse of the talk.origins list will provide an overview of all the various incidents that have come up (and continue to reappear).
So where does that leave me, about to take a field trip to MSH, led by a pair (trio, quartet, quintet - the actual number of "co-leaders" has changed a few times) of YEC's? Clearly I need to do some background reading to pre-empt some potentially wrong assertions. However, I am also a "guest" and they have invited strangers along for a trip to an amazing place (regardless of religious perspective).
My list of options as I see it:
Obviously, I am tempted by all of them in some way or another. But, I do not want to ruin the trip for the other participants. After all, they paid $95 bucks too - I would much rather have everyone remember the volcano and landscape positively. The trip leaders deserve some respect, because they have taken time and their own effort to organize the trip. However, I cannot let anything that hints of YEC thought "slide by." If a statement is made that is crazy, I fully intend to question it. There is no reason not to ask questions and demand evidence for any claim (reasonable, or no).
If any GSA member has stumbled upon this blog and is also taking this trip, I would be interested in your perspective. If, like me, you signed up unaware of the history of the leaders, you may want to do some preparatory reading (both about YEC and the actual events of MSH). The last thing I want is to have a bunch of surprised and angry geologists turning a field trip to one of the most spectacular places on earth into a shouting match, leaving everyone frustrated. It would be nice, however, to remind the trip leaders that their "Cargo Cult Science" is not actual science, and will be challenged (respectfully, but firmly) at every step.
I've been digging into the published GSA abstracts by some of the trip organizers, and have some thoughts on where some of the YEC work is headed. That will have to wait, since I need to write a midterm, give lectures and a lab, and pack.
Update: Here's the latest preview, with pictures from the flight, and a trip soundtrack.
Update: Flash-forward to part four.
Update2: A brief discussion about young-Earthism at GSA
(see the previous entry here)
It's clear that, while the Mount St. Helens (MSH) field trip leaders did not directly state their own viewpoints, the trip may be less sinister than it appears, especially since opening the trip to GSA members is certainly going to bias your crowd against YEC. However, I can't believe that some aspect of the trip will be used in an attempt to further YEC claims and ideas. I firmly believe this trip is a "stalking horse" of some type, although I won't get a better idea of what kind until the trip unfolds.
So what am I to do. Clearly, I can not let unfounded, and false claims go unchallenged. Everything about YEC "science" is anathema to the nature of science. It is based on misrepresentation of the data, out of context and misquoted thoughts of real scientists, and outright falsehoods. The late, great Richard Feynman wrote about pseudo-science and magical thinking in his book, "Surely you're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" where he discussed the search to measure the fundamental charge, e (about 1.6x10-19 Joules). The data were sometimes transformed or omitted to fit a preconceived notion of what the actual value should be. He termed this misuse of science as "Cargo Cult Science." It is a powerful and poignant example of how even good scientists can mislead themselves and misrepresent their work.
In short, Wikipedia describes a "Cargo Cult" as:
A cargo cult is a type of religious practice that may appear in traditional tribal societies in the wake of interaction with technologically advanced, non-native cultures. The cults are focused on obtaining the material wealth of the advanced culture through magical thinking, religious rituals and practices, believing that the wealth was intended for them by their deities and ancestors.
Creationists, and Young-Earth Creationists in particular, are an excellent example of "Cargo Cult Science." They are focused on obtaining the "material wealth" of the advanced culture (i.e. characterizing aspects of the real, physical world) through magical thinking and religion. The infuriating denial of physical evidence and easily observed facts, which makes open debate with YEC's impossible at best, is a direct result of their firm belief that their characterization of the physical world is infallible because it was intended for them by their god (and his only son).
The "Cargo Cults" recreate and imitate the technologically complex society right down to "airfields" and radios with bamboo "antennae" in hopes of persuading supernatural powers to bring the "cargo" (i.e. airplanes, wealth, etc.) to them. YEC's go through some, though importantly, not all of the "rituals" used by scientists in hopes of characterizing the physical world according to their world view. I'm not going to go into any details about how they abuse science to fit their desires, but a short browse of the talk.origins list will provide an overview of all the various incidents that have come up (and continue to reappear).
So where does that leave me, about to take a field trip to MSH, led by a pair (trio, quartet, quintet - the actual number of "co-leaders" has changed a few times) of YEC's? Clearly I need to do some background reading to pre-empt some potentially wrong assertions. However, I am also a "guest" and they have invited strangers along for a trip to an amazing place (regardless of religious perspective).
My list of options as I see it:
- Challenge them right off the bat - bring their opinions into the open immediately, turning the entire trip into a debate that could quickly spiral away from the volcanic event itself
- Ask specific questions about statements made "in the field." Any claims about excess Argon or erosion rates of ash versus thick sequences of sedimentary rock can be easily questioned with specific facts.
- Ask a bunch of "stumper" questions such as, "where did the water from the 'Flood' go?"
- Ignore them entirely and let my mind wander off to soak in the landscape by myself or like-minded field trip participants.
- Pretend to agree, getting them to make increasingly bizarre statements
- Hijack the trip and get people talking about anything but YEC claims related to MSH
Obviously, I am tempted by all of them in some way or another. But, I do not want to ruin the trip for the other participants. After all, they paid $95 bucks too - I would much rather have everyone remember the volcano and landscape positively. The trip leaders deserve some respect, because they have taken time and their own effort to organize the trip. However, I cannot let anything that hints of YEC thought "slide by." If a statement is made that is crazy, I fully intend to question it. There is no reason not to ask questions and demand evidence for any claim (reasonable, or no).
If any GSA member has stumbled upon this blog and is also taking this trip, I would be interested in your perspective. If, like me, you signed up unaware of the history of the leaders, you may want to do some preparatory reading (both about YEC and the actual events of MSH). The last thing I want is to have a bunch of surprised and angry geologists turning a field trip to one of the most spectacular places on earth into a shouting match, leaving everyone frustrated. It would be nice, however, to remind the trip leaders that their "Cargo Cult Science" is not actual science, and will be challenged (respectfully, but firmly) at every step.
I've been digging into the published GSA abstracts by some of the trip organizers, and have some thoughts on where some of the YEC work is headed. That will have to wait, since I need to write a midterm, give lectures and a lab, and pack.
Update: Here's the latest preview, with pictures from the flight, and a trip soundtrack.
Update: Flash-forward to part four.
Update2: A brief discussion about young-Earthism at GSA
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Geoblogging Survey
I really don't know if there are many geologists reading this blog - given how poorly I've attended to its needs over the last couple years. However, there are many new and wonderful geo-blogs out there. If you have one, and are interested in developing the geoblog community, take a stroll over and fill out the geoblog survey:
http://geoblogs.stratigraphy.net/survey/
It's quick and painless (at least nobody has come to pummel me yet)...
http://geoblogs.stratigraphy.net/survey/
It's quick and painless (at least nobody has come to pummel me yet)...
Down the Rabbit Hole, part the first
It's October, which means the national meeting of the Geological Society of America (GSA) is almost here. I'll be presenting a bit of my dissertation coupled with some additional analyses I didn't have time to include with the PhD.
This years meeting is in Portland, Oregon. There were several scheduled field trips to Mount St. Helens. Having never been to an active volcano before, I figured that I was obligated to conduct my pilgrimage. I looked at two possible trips:
This trip sounded interesting except for the study of the "engineering works" to mitigate the mass-wasting hazards of the volcaniclastic material. I didn't want to look at earthworks, I wanted to see the volcano and debris field. Compared to the other trip (below), I wasn't sure how much hiking we'd get to do (4 km compared to 13 km). The trip below was twenty bucks more expensive, but the description of the route sounded more interesting:
The trip objectives: classifying/naming individual landforms, relating landforms to events, and "pondering questions" about landscape change over time sounded a little "fluffy." However, the hike description sounded more interesting and I felt this would get closer to the volcano itself. Therefore, I paid my registration fee and quickly turned my attention to other needs, like teaching and manuscript preparation.
A few days ago, I was preparing my itinerary. I was curious exactly where the "Breeched Dam Overlook" was, so I googled that phrase, which pulled up a link to a post several months ago by another geoblogger. So, the trip was being run by Dr. Steven Austin, a Young-Earth Creationist (YEC), with a dubious, published record of very poor science. Did I mention a lack of rigor?
Apparently I did not perform my "due diligence" in teasing out the motives behind the trip. Further research showed that the other listed leader, Dr. Timothy Clary. A search of his course objectives at Delta College (MI) turned up nothing out of the ordinary, save for somewhat "old-fashioned" syllabus objectives. A few google links lower yielded an article published by the Institute of Creation Research - never a good sign. I'll save analysis of his writing for a later post. Suffice to say, I was a bit dismayed that I had signed up for a trip that would, no doubt, be used as a stalking horse for YEC claims. That GSA would allow a trip like this was a little surprising, but the trip description was straightforward enough that I don't think the field trip committee would have found anything to object to. Dr. Clary has also published a few abstracts at GSA meetings (I've read a few, and while they focus largely on observations and do not discuss an old earth or evolution, they also do not deny these facts).
The form and weather note emailed to the field trip attendees also lists Dr. Kurt Wise, Dr. John Whitmore, and Dennis Bokovoy as assistants. A quick search of these individuals produced a consistent body of "work" designed to support a "Young-Earth" and Noachian Flood cause for the Grand Canyon. The plot thickens (thins?). This is also the point in the story where the reader, well-versed in the sophistry of YEC's, can envision the motives and sequence of events during and after the field trip.
The language of the field trip description is also easier to parse in this light. Particularly interesting is the line
What I first took for flowery language appears to be a "set-up" to invite a discussion regarding the rapid landscape evolution of St. Helens. This "discussion" may have a foundation based on first principles of landscape geology, but also provide the YEC folks additional methods of arguing for a flood origin for the Grand Canyon.
And this line:
Is curious - vague enough to be completely useless from a scientific standpoint, but very helpful for YEC sophistry.
I have no idea what they mean by "minimum energy threshold," but I suspect that it is intended to further detail some aspect of catastrophism being required and fully capable of dramatically changing the landscape (such as the Grand Canyon) in a short (i.e. 40 day flood) time frame. Note also the comments about "diminishing energy" and transportation of fines. Likely another mis-application of hydrodynamic sorting to support a single, global flood event.
I do not know who else has signed up for the trip. It may be filled with geologists far more clever than I at sussing the motives of the trip leaders, or it may be largely filled with people sympathetic to YEC claims. Either way, what I first thought was a trip to see a volcano and learn about the eruption and landscape processes has evolved into a trip to see a volcano and observe a YEC at work.
I will provide a thorough account of the trip this weekend. In the meantime, my regular readers (both of you), I will provide a little more background in the next few days.
Update: See the latest post regarding some thoughts about the trip and YEC.
Update2: Here's the latest preview.
Update3: Flash-forward to part four.
Update4: A brief discussion about young-Earthism at GSA
This years meeting is in Portland, Oregon. There were several scheduled field trips to Mount St. Helens. Having never been to an active volcano before, I figured that I was obligated to conduct my pilgrimage. I looked at two possible trips:
Field Trip #420: From Disaster to Recovery: The Hydrogeomorphic, Ecologic, and Biologic Responses to the 1980 Eruption of Mount St. Helens (cost: $75)
Leader: John Major
[abridged] Description: ...Within minutes to hours on May 18, 1980, hundreds of square kilometers of landscape were devastated by a massive debris avalanche, a directed volcanic blast, debris flows, pyroclastic flows, and extensive tephra fall...
...This field trip travels along the Toutle River valley examining the impacts of, and the hydrogeomorphic, biologic, and ecologic responses to, the 1980 eruption. We will visit engineering works designed to control downstream sediment movement, Johnston Ridge (8 km from the volcano’s crater) which bore the brunt of the directed blast, and hike a 4-km-long trail loop on the massive debris avalanche deposit.
This trip sounded interesting except for the study of the "engineering works" to mitigate the mass-wasting hazards of the volcaniclastic material. I didn't want to look at earthworks, I wanted to see the volcano and debris field. Compared to the other trip (below), I wasn't sure how much hiking we'd get to do (4 km compared to 13 km). The trip below was twenty bucks more expensive, but the description of the route sounded more interesting:
Field Trip #425: The Dynamic Landscape on the North Flank of Mount St. Helens (cost: $95)
Leader: Steven A. Austin
[abridged] Description: This six-hour hike follows a 13-kilometer-round-trip route to an extraordinary geologic location called “Breached Dam Overlook” just seven kilometers north of the crater of Mount St. Helens. The trail goes from the Johnston Ridge Observatory onto the largest landslide deposit to have accumulated during human history...
...The objectives of the trip are (1) to identify, classify and name individual landforms within the upper North Fork Toutle River landscape, (2) to relate the landforms to the sequence of events and processes that have occurred next to the volcano, and (3) to ponder questions about how the landscape at a volcano changes through time. Landforms on the debris avalanche landscape are relicts that have been impacted significantly by geomorphic processes that exceed a certain minimum energy threshold. Following the debris avalanche of May 18, 1980, the most significant event was the mudflow of March 19, 1982. That mudflow event breached the natural debris dam, caused adjustment within the drainage basin, and derived the present landscape. Now that the power of geomorphic processes has diminished, finer sediment is what is being moved. Channels are incised and armored with coarser clasts, and valleys are now plugging with sediment. Johnston Ridge Observatory on the west side of Mount St. Helens Volcano National Monument is the staging area this roundtrip hike.
The trip objectives: classifying/naming individual landforms, relating landforms to events, and "pondering questions" about landscape change over time sounded a little "fluffy." However, the hike description sounded more interesting and I felt this would get closer to the volcano itself. Therefore, I paid my registration fee and quickly turned my attention to other needs, like teaching and manuscript preparation.
*******
A few days ago, I was preparing my itinerary. I was curious exactly where the "Breeched Dam Overlook" was, so I googled that phrase, which pulled up a link to a post several months ago by another geoblogger. So, the trip was being run by Dr. Steven Austin, a Young-Earth Creationist (YEC), with a dubious, published record of very poor science. Did I mention a lack of rigor?
Apparently I did not perform my "due diligence" in teasing out the motives behind the trip. Further research showed that the other listed leader, Dr. Timothy Clary. A search of his course objectives at Delta College (MI) turned up nothing out of the ordinary, save for somewhat "old-fashioned" syllabus objectives. A few google links lower yielded an article published by the Institute of Creation Research - never a good sign. I'll save analysis of his writing for a later post. Suffice to say, I was a bit dismayed that I had signed up for a trip that would, no doubt, be used as a stalking horse for YEC claims. That GSA would allow a trip like this was a little surprising, but the trip description was straightforward enough that I don't think the field trip committee would have found anything to object to. Dr. Clary has also published a few abstracts at GSA meetings (I've read a few, and while they focus largely on observations and do not discuss an old earth or evolution, they also do not deny these facts).
The form and weather note emailed to the field trip attendees also lists Dr. Kurt Wise, Dr. John Whitmore, and Dennis Bokovoy as assistants. A quick search of these individuals produced a consistent body of "work" designed to support a "Young-Earth" and Noachian Flood cause for the Grand Canyon. The plot thickens (thins?). This is also the point in the story where the reader, well-versed in the sophistry of YEC's, can envision the motives and sequence of events during and after the field trip.
The language of the field trip description is also easier to parse in this light. Particularly interesting is the line
ponder questions about how the landscape at a volcano changes through time
What I first took for flowery language appears to be a "set-up" to invite a discussion regarding the rapid landscape evolution of St. Helens. This "discussion" may have a foundation based on first principles of landscape geology, but also provide the YEC folks additional methods of arguing for a flood origin for the Grand Canyon.
And this line:
Landforms on the debris avalanche landscape are relicts that have been impacted significantly by geomorphic processes that exceed a certain minimum energy threshold.
Is curious - vague enough to be completely useless from a scientific standpoint, but very helpful for YEC sophistry.
I have no idea what they mean by "minimum energy threshold," but I suspect that it is intended to further detail some aspect of catastrophism being required and fully capable of dramatically changing the landscape (such as the Grand Canyon) in a short (i.e. 40 day flood) time frame. Note also the comments about "diminishing energy" and transportation of fines. Likely another mis-application of hydrodynamic sorting to support a single, global flood event.
I do not know who else has signed up for the trip. It may be filled with geologists far more clever than I at sussing the motives of the trip leaders, or it may be largely filled with people sympathetic to YEC claims. Either way, what I first thought was a trip to see a volcano and learn about the eruption and landscape processes has evolved into a trip to see a volcano and observe a YEC at work.
I will provide a thorough account of the trip this weekend. In the meantime, my regular readers (both of you), I will provide a little more background in the next few days.
Update: See the latest post regarding some thoughts about the trip and YEC.
Update2: Here's the latest preview.
Update3: Flash-forward to part four.
Update4: A brief discussion about young-Earthism at GSA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)