6 ms·

The scientific discovery whose recency most shocks me is plate tectonics. Here you have massively visible physical manifestations—mountains, earthquakes, and v

The scientific discovery whose recency most shocks me is plate tectonics. Here you have massively visible physical manifestations—mountains, earthquakes, and volcanos—that have shaped human history and played prominent roles in culture since the beginning of humankind, and we didn't have agreement on a good explanation for them until after Rubber Soul was recorded by the Beatles.

dredmorbius 6y ago
The story of how (and why) plate tectonics came to be accepted not only as established scientific wisdom but the central organising principle of geology is a fascinating one, studied at length by Naomi Oreskes: https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3Aoreskes+kw%3Atectonics https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3Aoreskes+kw%3Atectonic... Gross continental geography, radioactivity (energy release, isotopes, clocks), bathymetry, magnetic fields analysis, seismic surveys, nuclear testing (more radioactivity), fossil-record analysis, vulcanology, earthquake analysis, stratigraphy, core sampling, and so much more. All were parsimoniously explained best by plate tectonics.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  I feel that I'm conceptually familiar with plate tectonics as an explanation for mountains and earthquakes. But the grandparent comment and you both mention volcanoes, and the relationship between plate tectonics and volcanoes best known to me is that the Hawaiian islands were all formed by the same "fixed-location" volcanic hot spot as a tectonic plate drifted over it. This would seem to imply to me that plate tectonics isn't a good explanation for volcanoes. How are volcanoes best explained by plate tectonics?
  - glial 6y ago
    My limited understanding is that volcanoes in Hawaii are the exception rather than the rule. The rule is that they happen where plates converge: https://www.britannica.com/place/Ring-of-Fire https://www.britannica.com/place/Ring-of-Fire
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      Yes, that is also what I was taught. But that suggests the following model to me: 1. Volcanoes are caused by Circumstances X, Y, Z, whatever. 2. Collision of two tectonic plates causes Circumstances X. That is, I want the model of "volcanoes" to account for all volcanoes, not just most volcanoes. If we describe circumstances that are necessary and sufficient to create a volcano, we're done; the fact that the interaction of tectonic plates often creates those circumstances -- and even more often doesn't -- isn't really part of the model at all.
      - dredmorbius 6y ago
        "Whatever" turns out to be a reasonably limited set of exceptions to tectonic boundary models. Plate tectonics describes and explains the overwhelming majority of known current volcanos and volcanic regions. Mantle plumes, which themselves drive tectonic activity, much the rest. The overall structure of the Earth, with a thin crust, plastic mantle, and hot core with temperatures resulting from both latent heat of gravitational formation and ongoing radioactive decay itself explains much and is entirely consistent with plate tectonics. The principle further exceptions might be simply thin crust, or penetrations by impactors --- the universe is complex, volcanos result from escape or exposure of interior magma to the surface by some mechanism. Gods hurling thunderbolts or smithing armour for other gods, for example, has scant evidence. I'm unaware of any specific terrestrial volcanoes not explained by tectonic or plume mechanisms. There are minor craters (e.g., Ubehebe crater in Death Valley) resulting from steam rather than magmatic bursts, but still driven by geothermal processes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubehebe_Crater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubehebe_Crater Further we've now had evidence of similar mechanisms (or their lack) on other bodies, including the Moon (little tectonic activity, some faulting for other reasons, possibly validating Tethys impact formation hypothesis, possible recent volcanism https://coolinterestingstuff.com/volcanoes-erupted-on-the-moon-recently https://coolinterestingstuff.com/volcanoes-erupted-on-the-mo...), Mars (extinct volcanos, former tectonics), Venus (active volcanism, possible tectonics), Mercury (mixed, some faulting thought due to cooling and contraction), and Io (tidal-force induced volcanism), as well as other moons of Jupiter and Saturn.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    Volcanism can occur at both divergent (e.g., Iceland / mid-Atlantic rift, African rift valley) and convergent (e.g., Cascadia, Japan, Chile, subduction zone) plate boundaries, as well as in mid-plate regions subject to mantle plumes (Hawaii and, I believe, Yellowstone). http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/subduction-zone-volcanism http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/subduction-zone-volcanism https://youtube.com/watch?v=DUbX67e5rzI https://youtube.com/watch?v=DUbX67e5rzI
JackFr 6y ago
Continental Drift or something similar had been theorized for hundreds of years, but most famously scientifically proposed by Alfred Wegener in the early 20th century. In a famous survey of Fellows of the Geological Society, in 1961 only 22% accepted it, but by 1978 87% did. Consider that --- in 1978 13% of the most accomplished geologists still rejected it.
- bfieidhbrjr 6y ago
  Nobody should wonder why the public doesn't automatically trust scientists or "experts".
  - xsmasher 6y ago
    Scientific consensus is the worst possible system for determining the truth, except for all of the others.
    - goatlover 6y ago
      Similar to democracy and capitalism. Must be a human thing.
    - hcrisp 6y ago
      Not direct revelation? Works okay between two people. Unless you do controlled blind study on everything you observe and hear.
      - mgkimsal 6y ago
        The only truth I think you could confirm is that you believe you got information X from person Y. You couldn't have a high degree of confidence that X is 'true' in any meaningful sense just from the revelation.
        hcrisp 6y ago
        According to your view, I can't have confidence that your statement is "true" in any meaningful sense. But in my view, I can (though I don't, because it's "false").
ssivark 6y ago
I love this SMBC comic that describes the story arc of the acceptance of any radically new idea.
082349872349872 6y ago
Plate tectonics became obvious once the sea floor magnetisation data was declassified. Before then, the US Navy didn't want anyone to know what parts of the seabed they considered important, so there was a fair amount of scientific "parallel construction" undertaken first. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seafloor_spreading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seafloor_spreading

dredmorbius 6y ago

The story of how (and why) plate tectonics came to be accepted not only as established scientific wisdom but the central organising principle of geology is a fascinating one, studied at length by Naomi Oreskes: https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3Aoreskes+kw%3Atectonics https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3Aoreskes+kw%3Atectonic... Gross continental geography, radioactivity (energy release, isotopes, clocks), bathymetry, magnetic fields analysis, seismic surveys, nuclear testing (more radioactivity), fossil-record analysis, vulcanology, earthquake analysis, stratigraphy, core sampling, and so much more. All were parsimoniously explained best by plate tectonics.

thaumasiotes 6y ago
I feel that I'm conceptually familiar with plate tectonics as an explanation for mountains and earthquakes. But the grandparent comment and you both mention volcanoes, and the relationship between plate tectonics and volcanoes best known to me is that the Hawaiian islands were all formed by the same "fixed-location" volcanic hot spot as a tectonic plate drifted over it. This would seem to imply to me that plate tectonics isn't a good explanation for volcanoes. How are volcanoes best explained by plate tectonics?
- glial 6y ago
  My limited understanding is that volcanoes in Hawaii are the exception rather than the rule. The rule is that they happen where plates converge: https://www.britannica.com/place/Ring-of-Fire https://www.britannica.com/place/Ring-of-Fire
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    Yes, that is also what I was taught. But that suggests the following model to me: 1. Volcanoes are caused by Circumstances X, Y, Z, whatever. 2. Collision of two tectonic plates causes Circumstances X. That is, I want the model of "volcanoes" to account for all volcanoes, not just most volcanoes. If we describe circumstances that are necessary and sufficient to create a volcano, we're done; the fact that the interaction of tectonic plates often creates those circumstances -- and even more often doesn't -- isn't really part of the model at all.
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
      "Whatever" turns out to be a reasonably limited set of exceptions to tectonic boundary models. Plate tectonics describes and explains the overwhelming majority of known current volcanos and volcanic regions. Mantle plumes, which themselves drive tectonic activity, much the rest. The overall structure of the Earth, with a thin crust, plastic mantle, and hot core with temperatures resulting from both latent heat of gravitational formation and ongoing radioactive decay itself explains much and is entirely consistent with plate tectonics. The principle further exceptions might be simply thin crust, or penetrations by impactors --- the universe is complex, volcanos result from escape or exposure of interior magma to the surface by some mechanism. Gods hurling thunderbolts or smithing armour for other gods, for example, has scant evidence. I'm unaware of any specific terrestrial volcanoes not explained by tectonic or plume mechanisms. There are minor craters (e.g., Ubehebe crater in Death Valley) resulting from steam rather than magmatic bursts, but still driven by geothermal processes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubehebe_Crater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubehebe_Crater Further we've now had evidence of similar mechanisms (or their lack) on other bodies, including the Moon (little tectonic activity, some faulting for other reasons, possibly validating Tethys impact formation hypothesis, possible recent volcanism https://coolinterestingstuff.com/volcanoes-erupted-on-the-moon-recently https://coolinterestingstuff.com/volcanoes-erupted-on-the-mo...), Mars (extinct volcanos, former tectonics), Venus (active volcanism, possible tectonics), Mercury (mixed, some faulting thought due to cooling and contraction), and Io (tidal-force induced volcanism), as well as other moons of Jupiter and Saturn.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Volcanism can occur at both divergent (e.g., Iceland / mid-Atlantic rift, African rift valley) and convergent (e.g., Cascadia, Japan, Chile, subduction zone) plate boundaries, as well as in mid-plate regions subject to mantle plumes (Hawaii and, I believe, Yellowstone). http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/subduction-zone-volcanism http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/subduction-zone-volcanism https://youtube.com/watch?v=DUbX67e5rzI https://youtube.com/watch?v=DUbX67e5rzI

JackFr 6y ago

Continental Drift or something similar had been theorized for hundreds of years, but most famously scientifically proposed by Alfred Wegener in the early 20th century. In a famous survey of Fellows of the Geological Society, in 1961 only 22% accepted it, but by 1978 87% did. Consider that --- in 1978 13% of the most accomplished geologists still rejected it.

bfieidhbrjr 6y ago
Nobody should wonder why the public doesn't automatically trust scientists or "experts".
- xsmasher 6y ago
  Scientific consensus is the worst possible system for determining the truth, except for all of the others.
  - goatlover 6y ago
    Similar to democracy and capitalism. Must be a human thing.
  - hcrisp 6y ago
    Not direct revelation? Works okay between two people. Unless you do controlled blind study on everything you observe and hear.
    - mgkimsal 6y ago
      The only truth I think you could confirm is that you believe you got information X from person Y. You couldn't have a high degree of confidence that X is 'true' in any meaningful sense just from the revelation.
      - hcrisp 6y ago
        According to your view, I can't have confidence that your statement is "true" in any meaningful sense. But in my view, I can (though I don't, because it's "false").

ssivark 6y ago

I love this SMBC comic that describes the story arc of the acceptance of any radically new idea.

082349872349872 6y ago

Plate tectonics became obvious once the sea floor magnetisation data was declassified. Before then, the US Navy didn't want anyone to know what parts of the seabed they considered important, so there was a fair amount of scientific "parallel construction" undertaken first. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seafloor_spreading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seafloor_spreading