AAPG Explorer - June 2010 - American Association of Petroleum ...

AAPG
EXPLORER
“We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it and stop there,
lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove lid. She will never sit on a hot stove lid
again and that is well, but also she will never sit down on a cold one any more.” Mark Twain
4 JUNE 2010 WWW.AAPG.ORG
President
from previous page
pseudo-scientific yet popular apocalyptic
geological reinterpretations “Worlds in
Collision” and “Earth in Upheaval”. These
works had a veneer of authenticity and
were accepted by many when they were
originally written half a century ago,
but the scientific community critically
assessed them as lacking and they have
been largely forgotten.
On the other hand, using more
scientific processes, some nongeologists
have made significant
contributions to geology and their
theories have withstood critical scientific
assessment to become part of our
scientific foundation. Consider Alfred
Wegener, the meteorologist, and
his ideas of continental drift, or Luis
Alvarez, an experimental physicist,
whose theories of planetary impacts
revolutionized not only the geological
record but also many concepts of
evolution.
One of the differences between
Alvarez and Velikovsky is that the first
used defensible data synthesized into a
plausible and testable theory whereas the
other picked isolated facts out of context
to spin a story. The more scientific
approach of Alvarez is not immediately
apparent to the non-critical thinker who
looks only at an author’s conclusions.
Critical thinking requires listening to
and assessing, but not necessarily
accepting, opposing views. It requires
the give and take of discussion, not just
stone-wall contradiction. The difference
between discussion and contradiction is
humorously illustrated in Monty Python’s
“Argument” sketch (http://vids.myspace.
com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.
individual&videoid=3284452). There is
much truth in humor. If someone believes
too much in their side of an argument
to laugh about it, be cautious. Likewise,
learn to ask questions and beware of
someone who doesn’t consider them
seriously. AAPG member and Piceance
basin expert Steve Cumella notes that
science would be stagnant if we all
agreed on the issues and answers.
Other rules of thumb for the critical
thinker include instant caution flags
whenever someone throws the term
“obviously” into a discussion. A critical
thinker gets information from multiple
and diverse sources before taking sides
in an issue. One should consider not
only someone’s conclusions but also the
logic and data that were used to come to
those conclusions. Does the expert have
personal experience in the area or is
the argument theoretical? Calibrate your
sources: Peer-reviewed literature is not
infallible but it tends to be more reliable
than not. Websites can be anyone’s
guess. Recognize that just because a
person has a Ph.D. doesn’t make them
experts in all fields, or even in their own.
Consider also whether a person drawing
specific conclusions might have another,
less apparent agenda that would be
served by those conclusions.
Many pressing issues in today’s world
would benefit from thoughtful reflection
by geologists. We have a wide range of
opportunity for exercising critical thinking
in our science, and the numerous AAPG
venues provide a wealth of data to assist
critical thought.
* * *
This is my last opportunity as
president to inflict a view of the world
onto the AAPG membership. One year
goes by quickly: that’s either good in that
it limits the opportunities to do damage,
or bad because a year is not nearly
enough time to effect significant change.
Regardless, it has been an honor. My
sincere thanks to Gretchen Gillis and Liz
Lorenz who have edited these columns
and kept me from making egregious
errors.