------=_NextPart_000_01BE9D97.009463E0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> From: Vandergraaf, Chuck <vandergraaft@aecl.ca>
> Note that I used the word "theory." Scientists base their theories on
> information obtained in the process of investigating nature. These
theories
> may or may not be correct but they should be internally and externally
> consistent. If I don't agree with their theory, I have the opportunity
and
> the responsibility to suggest an alternative explanation and theory. In
> that way, I challenge their conclusions. IOW, it is not sufficient to
say
> that their interpretation is incorrect or that their theory is pure bunk.
I
> have to use their data as well as other published data, or my own, to
come
> up with an alternative explanation. It may be a lot of work, but that's
> life. In your particular case, then, should you not publish your theory
and
> back it up with information obtained by you and others or show the flaws
in
> somebody else's theory?
>
> Am I missing something here?
I have been proposing a catastrophe hypothesis. Shimmrich said that it
won't work because certain scientific inquiries in Diagenesis. He did not
elaborate. I asked to know how he thought Diagenesis
disproved my hypothesis. I have now gotten some resource books on
Diagenesis and have not yet seen anything which would rule out catastrophic
deposition followed by litification giving what we now see in the rocks.
Allen
------=_NextPart_000_01BE9D97.009463E0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> From: Vandergraaf, Chuck <vandergraaft@aecl.ca>
> Note that I used the word =
"theory." Scientists base their theories on
> =
information obtained in the process of investigating nature. These =
theories
> may or may not be correct but they should be internally =
and externally
> consistent. If I don't agree with their =
theory, I have the opportunity and
> the responsibility to suggest =
an alternative explanation and theory. In
> that way, I =
challenge their conclusions. IOW, it is not sufficient to =
say
> that their interpretation is incorrect or that their theory =
is pure bunk. I
> have to use their data as well as other =
published data, or my own, to come
> up with an alternative =
explanation. It may be a lot of work, but that's
> life. =
In your particular case, then, should you not publish your theory =
and
> back it up with information obtained by you and others or =
show the flaws in
> somebody else's theory?
>
> Am I =
missing something here?
I have been proposing a catastrophe =
hypothesis. Shimmrich said that it won't work because certain =
scientific inquiries in Diagenesis. He did not elaborate. I =
asked to know how he thought Diagenesis
disproved my hypothesis. =
I have now gotten some resource books on Diagenesis and have not =
yet seen anything which would rule out catastrophic deposition followed =
by litification giving what we now see in the =
rocks.
Allen