8 ms·

> Hutton realised that the formation and movement of these rocks to create the coastline we see at Siccar Point couldn’t happen in sudden cataclysms over years

> Hutton realised that the formation and movement of these rocks to create the coastline we see at Siccar Point couldn’t happen in sudden cataclysms over years or decades Color me skeptical. Why couldn’t these be quickly deposited layers that were later turned upright in some cataclysm? Why couldn’t they have taken decades? Yes I know it’s heresy to question long established science, but that is the essence of science is it not? Questions and skepticism :-) Off to do more reading I suppose.

teekert 9y ago
Questioning long established science is anything but heresy. It is an essential part of it. Whoever taught you that that heresy nonsense should be kept far away from science. No offense.
- SlowBro 9y ago
  To wit: “that is the essence of science is it not?” My “heresy” exaggeration was directed toward those who might become emotionally charged at the suggestion that Hutton misinterpreted the evidence :-)
  - arethuza 9y ago
    But that implies you were trying to provoke an "emotionally charged" response, which is generally slightly frowned on here on HN.
    - SlowBro 9y ago
      Nope. Trying to prevent such.
- coliveira 9y ago
  There is a difference between questioning from a point of view of contributing new information and questioning for the simple pleasure of disagreement. The first position is necessary for the development of science, the second is a hindrance.
- SideburnsOfDoom 9y ago
  When the "long established science" is evolutionary biology, and to a lesser extent the geology of the age of the Earth, some of the questioning is not done in a sincere scientific spirit and it is not a good use of time to always treat it as if it is.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- woodandsteel 9y ago
  >Questioning long established science is anything but heresy By "questioning" do you mean claiming you are certain that established beliefs are wrong? In that case, you should first very carefully study the reasoning behind those beliefs. Or do you mean saying "that seems to me wrong, but this is something I have not studied, so explain the reasoning to me"
RobertRoberts 9y ago
I was at a cave tour with family, and there were stalagmites and stalactites in an early room. The guide said "These took thousands of years to form." Then later in the tour, there was a super thick layer of rock formations coating (layered mind you) a large section, it looked nearly identical to the stalagmites and stalacties from before, and the guide said "This all formed in a few months from a rush of hot mineral rich water from a broken geyser." The guide seemed to realize how these two notions completed conflicted in the story telling, got all flummoxed, tried to justify the difference in time claims (no one even questioned the guide) and then awkwardly stopped talking and continued the tour. I think there is a reasonable possibility we may be wrong about the timing of at least some rock formations...
- nkrisc 9y ago
  > it looked nearly identical to the stalagmites and stalacties From casual observation, perhaps. But how about upon close scrutiny?
  - RobertRoberts 9y ago
    Who knows, I got the impression from the guide it was exactly the same kind of rock. It was even named by the guide, but this is from memory, and the guide could have been wrong.
- jofer 9y ago
  The key in that case would be composition. Gyeser deposits are typically silica, and even when they're carbonate, they have a very distinct composition. Also, I doubt what you saw was related to a geyser. It's not impossible, but I can't think of anywhere with volcanic activity and large caves formed in carbonates. More likely, you were in the Carlsbad area, in which case you have some massive gypsum formations that are related to acidic waters formed by bacteria decomposing hydrocarbons. They form relatively rapidly (and the acidic waters formed the huge caverns). However, they're a completely different chemical composition than the stalactites just beside them (Gymsum vs calcite -- basically, gypsum has sulfur, which isn't in the rock around it, while calcite is what the "native" rock is made of).
Arnt 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton%27s_Unconformity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton%27s_Unconformity If there were a cataclysm large enough to upend a million tons of rock, what would you expect to see? A lot of rock smashed to pieces, perhaps? Do you see it? Ditto for decades. What conditions are necessary to form rock quickly. Lava is quick but doesn't form that kind of rock. But anyway, to form it in decades, what conditions have to prevail? Do you see traces? I can't answer, but I expect the geologists who listened to Hutton's talk could.
jofer 9y ago
It's a great question!! There are two key reasons from Hutton's era, and several others from the modern era. The first argument is what we see being formed today. Hutton was the original proponent of the principle of uniformitarianism (a.k.a. "the present is the key to the past"). We can find environments producing similar sediments as those rocks today, and they form slowly. This is the key parts of Hutton's original argument: That cliff is made of sandstones that are similar to those forming on beaches and rivers just around the corner. However, the modern processes we see forming sandstones operate very slowly. We do see some rapid pulses of deposition, but then very long times between each pulse. It takes even longer for the sand to start hardening into rock (with the exception of calcite cementation, anyway, which can happen in a few decades). If you look at the rocks in that outcrop, you'll see that they are themselves made up of other rocks. Furthermore, they have pebbles and boulders of themselves (solidified as rock and then eroded) contained within them. To have a sandstone that has pieces of itself that have hardened into rock, been eroded away, and then re-deposited requires a long time with any of the processes we see operating today. The next reason is scale. There are lots of processes that can locally deform things (e.g. a landslide), but very few that can consistently deform things in the same way across an entire continent. You can trace that same interval of upturned (folded) rock all the way across the UK (and North America and other parts of Europe, though that wasn't known in Hutton's day). What process could affect such a huge area in a very short time? If it did occur in a short time, why isn't the rock shattered instead of folded? (Materials deform very differently at different strain rates.) How do you fold kilometer-thick sections of rock over thousands of kilometers without it being a gradual process? There's tons of other very clear reasons, but they weren't known in Hutton's day. The simplest answer is still to go look at the rocks. They demonstrate a clear record of environments you can see today. Coal mines played a large role in convincing people in the 1800's, as they preserve an immediately recognizable environment. You can see coal seams with stumps of trees growing through them (complete with roots). The stumps are snapped off by a river channel that cuts through. Next another coal seam with stumps in it, and then the same above. Do we have any reason to believe that trees would have grown dramatically faster in the past?
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  > We can find environments producing similar sediments as those rocks today, and they form slowly. This is the key parts of Hutton's original argument: That cliff is made of sandstones that are similar to those forming on beaches and rivers just around the corner. This seems flawed to me. "We can find environments producing similar sediments as those rocks today, and they form slowly." That's kind of saying "Under conditions like today, things happen like they do today." But catastrophes are, by definition, not the way things happen today. So this argument boils down to either "Catastrophes have to produce different-looking results than non-catastrophic processes" (which may be a defensible point, but requires defense rather than just assuming it), or else to an implicit assumption that catastrophes did not in fact occur. The second option may require a bit of explanation. I can assume uniformitarianism, see things that can be formed by gradual processes, assume that everything I see that could be formed by gradual processes was in fact so formed, and then see confirming evidence for gradualism and uniformitarianism everywhere. But if in fact the same effect could be produced by a catastrophe, I don't have any evidence - just an assumption and a circular argument.
nvahalik 9y ago
There should be no recourse for asking questions like these. It seems like many people forget that science is about what can be observed. Hutton's ideas are speculation. He can no more prove that is what happened than you or I can prove that the grand canyon took millions of years to get to the way that it currently is. To say that this in any way proves or lends credence to "deep time" simply exposes the worldview of the individual who espouses the view.
- arethuza 9y ago
  Unlike in maths, the concept of "proof" in a the context of something like geology isn't a clear cut concept, as Popper wrote: "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory,"
  - posterboy 9y ago
    Which is a convenient argument to make, because it can be applied to the argument itself. But by extension, all we know would be that we don't know anything. Which is a good starting point, but not really satisfactory. The word em-piri-cal is related to ex-peri-ance and ex-peri-ment, so ... the idea is what isn't broken doesn't need fixing. And by a stretch, imperial is related, though the latter is from latin whereas the former is from greek; Both go back to "* per", which still exists on its own and in "perform", e.g. ... so I guess the idea is proof by construction. A program is isomorphic to a proof, according to the Curry Howard Correspondence, this is well known around here. As a student of Physics and CompSci I had to defend the "pure math" perspective. Anyway, the circular reasoning of the quote is just the way the mind works. Still, the certainty can be quantified with Bayesian reasoning, but there has to be a threshold of what's transmitted.
- empath75 9y ago
  There is no 'proof' in science. You only have theories which can explain all currently known observations, and those which don't. And the theories which explain all known observations tend to have _predictive power_, which means that you can predict the outcome of some experiment or event using the theory and then verify the prediction through observation. Even a prediction, however, doesn't "prove" the theory. Even a thousand or a million predictions don't. There's always a possibility, no matter how slight, that it was all one giant coincidence, and some future observation will throw everything into chaos. All of that said -- the preponderance of the evidence-- and not just Hutton's observations but carbon dating and biology and chemistry, etc, etc, all strongly suggest the same interpretation, and one would have to have an astoundingly good reason for believing anything else. Everything about the impossibility of proof that applies to our current understanding of "deep time" applies a million fold for any other theory which almost certainly lacks any explanatory or predictive power at all.

teekert 9y ago

Questioning long established science is anything but heresy. It is an essential part of it. Whoever taught you that that heresy nonsense should be kept far away from science. No offense.

SlowBro 9y ago
To wit: “that is the essence of science is it not?” My “heresy” exaggeration was directed toward those who might become emotionally charged at the suggestion that Hutton misinterpreted the evidence :-)
- arethuza 9y ago
  But that implies you were trying to provoke an "emotionally charged" response, which is generally slightly frowned on here on HN.
  - SlowBro 9y ago
    Nope. Trying to prevent such.
coliveira 9y ago
There is a difference between questioning from a point of view of contributing new information and questioning for the simple pleasure of disagreement. The first position is necessary for the development of science, the second is a hindrance.
SideburnsOfDoom 9y ago
When the "long established science" is evolutionary biology, and to a lesser extent the geology of the age of the Earth, some of the questioning is not done in a sincere scientific spirit and it is not a good use of time to always treat it as if it is.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
woodandsteel 9y ago
>Questioning long established science is anything but heresy By "questioning" do you mean claiming you are certain that established beliefs are wrong? In that case, you should first very carefully study the reasoning behind those beliefs. Or do you mean saying "that seems to me wrong, but this is something I have not studied, so explain the reasoning to me"

RobertRoberts 9y ago

I was at a cave tour with family, and there were stalagmites and stalactites in an early room. The guide said "These took thousands of years to form." Then later in the tour, there was a super thick layer of rock formations coating (layered mind you) a large section, it looked nearly identical to the stalagmites and stalacties from before, and the guide said "This all formed in a few months from a rush of hot mineral rich water from a broken geyser." The guide seemed to realize how these two notions completed conflicted in the story telling, got all flummoxed, tried to justify the difference in time claims (no one even questioned the guide) and then awkwardly stopped talking and continued the tour. I think there is a reasonable possibility we may be wrong about the timing of at least some rock formations...

nkrisc 9y ago
> it looked nearly identical to the stalagmites and stalacties From casual observation, perhaps. But how about upon close scrutiny?
- RobertRoberts 9y ago
  Who knows, I got the impression from the guide it was exactly the same kind of rock. It was even named by the guide, but this is from memory, and the guide could have been wrong.
jofer 9y ago
The key in that case would be composition. Gyeser deposits are typically silica, and even when they're carbonate, they have a very distinct composition. Also, I doubt what you saw was related to a geyser. It's not impossible, but I can't think of anywhere with volcanic activity and large caves formed in carbonates. More likely, you were in the Carlsbad area, in which case you have some massive gypsum formations that are related to acidic waters formed by bacteria decomposing hydrocarbons. They form relatively rapidly (and the acidic waters formed the huge caverns). However, they're a completely different chemical composition than the stalactites just beside them (Gymsum vs calcite -- basically, gypsum has sulfur, which isn't in the rock around it, while calcite is what the "native" rock is made of).

Arnt 9y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton%27s_Unconformity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton%27s_Unconformity If there were a cataclysm large enough to upend a million tons of rock, what would you expect to see? A lot of rock smashed to pieces, perhaps? Do you see it? Ditto for decades. What conditions are necessary to form rock quickly. Lava is quick but doesn't form that kind of rock. But anyway, to form it in decades, what conditions have to prevail? Do you see traces? I can't answer, but I expect the geologists who listened to Hutton's talk could.

jofer 9y ago

It's a great question!! There are two key reasons from Hutton's era, and several others from the modern era. The first argument is what we see being formed today. Hutton was the original proponent of the principle of uniformitarianism (a.k.a. "the present is the key to the past"). We can find environments producing similar sediments as those rocks today, and they form slowly. This is the key parts of Hutton's original argument: That cliff is made of sandstones that are similar to those forming on beaches and rivers just around the corner. However, the modern processes we see forming sandstones operate very slowly. We do see some rapid pulses of deposition, but then very long times between each pulse. It takes even longer for the sand to start hardening into rock (with the exception of calcite cementation, anyway, which can happen in a few decades). If you look at the rocks in that outcrop, you'll see that they are themselves made up of other rocks. Furthermore, they have pebbles and boulders of themselves (solidified as rock and then eroded) contained within them. To have a sandstone that has pieces of itself that have hardened into rock, been eroded away, and then re-deposited requires a long time with any of the processes we see operating today. The next reason is scale. There are lots of processes that can locally deform things (e.g. a landslide), but very few that can consistently deform things in the same way across an entire continent. You can trace that same interval of upturned (folded) rock all the way across the UK (and North America and other parts of Europe, though that wasn't known in Hutton's day). What process could affect such a huge area in a very short time? If it did occur in a short time, why isn't the rock shattered instead of folded? (Materials deform very differently at different strain rates.) How do you fold kilometer-thick sections of rock over thousands of kilometers without it being a gradual process? There's tons of other very clear reasons, but they weren't known in Hutton's day. The simplest answer is still to go look at the rocks. They demonstrate a clear record of environments you can see today. Coal mines played a large role in convincing people in the 1800's, as they preserve an immediately recognizable environment. You can see coal seams with stumps of trees growing through them (complete with roots). The stumps are snapped off by a river channel that cuts through. Next another coal seam with stumps in it, and then the same above. Do we have any reason to believe that trees would have grown dramatically faster in the past?

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
> We can find environments producing similar sediments as those rocks today, and they form slowly. This is the key parts of Hutton's original argument: That cliff is made of sandstones that are similar to those forming on beaches and rivers just around the corner. This seems flawed to me. "We can find environments producing similar sediments as those rocks today, and they form slowly." That's kind of saying "Under conditions like today, things happen like they do today." But catastrophes are, by definition, not the way things happen today. So this argument boils down to either "Catastrophes have to produce different-looking results than non-catastrophic processes" (which may be a defensible point, but requires defense rather than just assuming it), or else to an implicit assumption that catastrophes did not in fact occur. The second option may require a bit of explanation. I can assume uniformitarianism, see things that can be formed by gradual processes, assume that everything I see that could be formed by gradual processes was in fact so formed, and then see confirming evidence for gradualism and uniformitarianism everywhere. But if in fact the same effect could be produced by a catastrophe, I don't have any evidence - just an assumption and a circular argument.

nvahalik 9y ago

There should be no recourse for asking questions like these. It seems like many people forget that science is about what can be observed. Hutton's ideas are speculation. He can no more prove that is what happened than you or I can prove that the grand canyon took millions of years to get to the way that it currently is. To say that this in any way proves or lends credence to "deep time" simply exposes the worldview of the individual who espouses the view.

arethuza 9y ago
Unlike in maths, the concept of "proof" in a the context of something like geology isn't a clear cut concept, as Popper wrote: "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory,"
- posterboy 9y ago
  Which is a convenient argument to make, because it can be applied to the argument itself. But by extension, all we know would be that we don't know anything. Which is a good starting point, but not really satisfactory. The word em-piri-cal is related to ex-peri-ance and ex-peri-ment, so ... the idea is what isn't broken doesn't need fixing. And by a stretch, imperial is related, though the latter is from latin whereas the former is from greek; Both go back to "* per", which still exists on its own and in "perform", e.g. ... so I guess the idea is proof by construction. A program is isomorphic to a proof, according to the Curry Howard Correspondence, this is well known around here. As a student of Physics and CompSci I had to defend the "pure math" perspective. Anyway, the circular reasoning of the quote is just the way the mind works. Still, the certainty can be quantified with Bayesian reasoning, but there has to be a threshold of what's transmitted.
empath75 9y ago
There is no 'proof' in science. You only have theories which can explain all currently known observations, and those which don't. And the theories which explain all known observations tend to have _predictive power_, which means that you can predict the outcome of some experiment or event using the theory and then verify the prediction through observation. Even a prediction, however, doesn't "prove" the theory. Even a thousand or a million predictions don't. There's always a possibility, no matter how slight, that it was all one giant coincidence, and some future observation will throw everything into chaos. All of that said -- the preponderance of the evidence-- and not just Hutton's observations but carbon dating and biology and chemistry, etc, etc, all strongly suggest the same interpretation, and one would have to have an astoundingly good reason for believing anything else. Everything about the impossibility of proof that applies to our current understanding of "deep time" applies a million fold for any other theory which almost certainly lacks any explanatory or predictive power at all.