Jump to content

Scientists can only see the earth surface, can only theorize what is under it


factseeker88
 Share

Recommended Posts

San Clemente Fault. Palos Verdes Fault. Rose Canyon Fault. Newport-Inglewood Fault. Whittier Fault. Santa Cruz Fault. Malibu Coast Fault, San andreas fault, and moving tetonic plates are all educated theories because they cannot be seen or demonstrated for all to see and understand, and siesmic inducators only detect movements and vibrations.

 

What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

San Clemente Fault. Palos Verdes Fault. Rose Canyon Fault. Newport-Inglewood Fault. Whittier Fault. Santa Cruz Fault. Malibu Coast Fault, San andreas fault, and moving tetonic plates are all educated theories because they cannot be seen or demonstrated for all to see and understand, and siesmic inducators only detect movements and vibrations.

 

“What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)

 

 

No you are wrong, we can indeed see under ground with sound waves much the same way a baby can be imaged inside it's mothers womb...

Edited by Moontanman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

San Clemente Fault. Palos Verdes Fault. Rose Canyon Fault. Newport-Inglewood Fault. Whittier Fault. Santa Cruz Fault. Malibu Coast Fault, San andreas fault, and moving tetonic plates are all educated theories because they cannot be seen or demonstrated for all to see and understand, and siesmic inducators only detect movements and vibrations.

 

A couple of problems:

 

1. You assume that only visual observation counts. Which is just silly.

 

2. You seem to think that theorizing about things is a Bad Thing. Yet it is the whole basis of our undertsanding of the world around us (and the technology you use to post this message).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soo, what's the discussion here? So far, it smells a lot like soap inside this topic.

 

If you have nothing to add to the topic, please stay out of it.

 

 

 

A couple of problems:

 

1. You assume that only visual observation counts. Which is just silly.

 

2. You seem to think that theorizing about things is a Bad Thing. Yet it is the whole basis of our undertsanding of the world around us (and the technology you use to post this message).

 

The TV science channel asks their viewers to QUESTION EVERYTHING and that is what I am doing --- taking nothing for granted

 

What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)

 

“This moment is your life.” Omar Khayyam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The TV science channel asks their viewers to QUESTION EVERYTHING and that is what I am doing --- taking nothing for granted

 

All you have done is state the obvious. We can only see the surface of the Earth. Trivially true but uninteresting. We theorize about the internal structure, based on multiple lines of evidence. Yep. That is what science does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question everything indeed, and it's good that you do. However we have other ways of knowing what's under the Earth's surface which don't involve visual observations. some of the other respondents gave you some useful information. I particularly like Moontan man's analogy to an 'ultrasound scan'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The TV science channel asks their viewers to QUESTION EVERYTHING and that is what I am doing --- taking nothing for granted

 

You realised that you don't know what is under the ground and you took it for granted that nobody else could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

No you are wrong, we can indeed see under ground with sound waves much the same way a baby can be imaged inside it's mothers womb...

 

Sonar only works in water and the fetus is in an amniobic fluid.

 

What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)

 

“This moment is your life.” Omar Khayyam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sonar only works in water and the fetus is in an amniobic fluid.

 

You may have heard of "seismology"?

 

 

The TV science channel asks their viewers to QUESTION EVERYTHING and that is what I am doing --- taking nothing for granted

 

That is what scientists are trained to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

All you have done is state the obvious. We can only see the surface of the Earth. Trivially true but uninteresting. We theorize about the internal structure, based on multiple lines of evidence. Yep. That is what science does.

 

Remember what the Science channel said - QUESTION EVERYTHING. Their indecisiveness should be a warning to all scientists and would be scientists.

 

What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)

 

“This moment is your life.” Omar Khayyam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Remember what the Science channel said - QUESTION EVERYTHING. Their indecisiveness should be a warning to all scientists and would be scientists.

 

As I say, scientists are trained to question everything. That is what they do.

 

What point are you trying to make? Because just repeating the same thing isn't terribly constructive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

That is what scientists are trained to do.

 

 

True scientists seek the truth, but the majority seem to be satisfied with the status quo, conventional wisdom, especially if they have written papers and books about it.

 

What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)

 

“This moment is your life.” Omar Khayyam

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True scientists seek the truth, but the majority seem to be satisfied with the status quo, conventional wisdom, especially if they have written papers and books about it.

 

Scientists don't really seek "truth"; that is more in the realm of philosophy and religion.

 

And few, if any, are satisfied with the status quo. You don't seem to know much about how scientists work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True scientists seek the truth, but the majority seem to be satisfied with the status quo, conventional wisdom, especially if they have written papers and books about it. <-- no they don't as you cannot be 100% sure about anything. Kindly read up on the scientific method, then come back.

Edited by Fuzzwood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

San andreas fault, ... cannot be seen

 

Actually, if you go into the hills above Palo Alto you can stand on the fault and see signs of it all around you; you can see it wiggling its way north to San Francisco.

 

Are proposing some alternative model for earthquakes, the creation of mountains, seismic activity, mid sea ridges, volcanoes, the distribution of flora and fauna, .... ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

True scientists seek the truth, but the majority seem to be satisfied with the status quo, conventional wisdom, especially if they have written papers and books about it.

 

What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO. John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)

 

This moment is your life. Omar Khayyam

.

If scientists were satisfied by the status quo, they wouldn't be scientists. The job of a scientist isn't to sit around writing textbooks about what we already know. It's to figure out what we don't. That is what the majority of scientists get paid to do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

True scientists seek the truth, but the majority seem to be satisfied with the status quo, ...

It may seem that way to you. But lots of use here are scientists and we are in a position to tell you that you are simply wrong.

 

Thus far you have been wrong about the title of the tread,

this,

"they cannot be seen or demonstrated for all to see"

This

"The TV science channel asks their viewers to QUESTION EVERYTHING and that is what I am doing --- taking nothing for granted"

in that you took it and your beliefs for granted.

This

"Sonar only works in water and the fetus is in an amniobic fluid."

and

this

"Their indecisiveness should be a warning to all scientists and would be scientists."

 

 

Wouldn't it be better if you found out a bit more about science rather than coming here an insulting most scientists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, if you go into the hills above Palo Alto you can stand on the fault and see signs of it all around you; you can see it wiggling its way north to San Francisco.

 

Are proposing some alternative model for earthquakes, the creation of mountains, seismic activity, mid sea ridges, volcanoes, the distribution of flora and fauna, .... ?

And there is this in Iceland, where you can actually see where two plates are separating:

 

CABAA-IBHBB-ECEHD-FI_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

factseeker,

it is a good name and I encourage you to live up to it.

 

As others have pointed out you have a flawed view of science and scientists. The reason that scientifically educated laypersons and scientists often seem to be quoting from textbooks, or appear to be taking things for granted, is simple. Information only gets into textbooks after it has been validated by thousands of observations, carried out in hundreds of tests, by scores of scientists. The only thing that is taken for granted is that the scientific method has shown itself to vastly superior to any other method for learning about the nature of the world. And the validity of that approach is tested thousands of times every day by scientists working in every field.

 

So, if tectonic plates are not the underlying explanation for what we see of the topography and geology of the crust, what alternative explanation do you think we should consider?

 

You say you want to question everything, but so far your questions have been sub-standard - to an embarrassing degree - for any scientific discussion. Please ask a probing question about a detailed issue of geology. One that we might be able to address without going through the entire canon of geochemistry, geomorphology, tectonics, petrology, paleontology, historical geology, sedimentology, seismology, geophysics, mineralogy, etc,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember what the Science channel said - QUESTION EVERYTHING. Their indecisiveness should be a warning to all scientists and would be scientists.

True scientists seek the truth, but the majority seem to be satisfied with the status quo, conventional wisdom, especially if they have written papers and books about it.

 

Science Channel isn't being indecisive. They're being pedantic. They aren't warning that science is wrong (unless they're promoting a paranormal show), they're saying you need to find out what science has to say before taking anything for granted. They're taking an important part of the scientific method and emphasizing it to make it stand out.

 

But they aren't really saying you need to question everything all the time. The methodology requires you to work with as few preconceptions as possible, but obviously you need to rely on some concepts as being essentially true. What Science Channel should be saying (but won't because they have to sell advertising with misleadingly vividness) is Take Nothing For Granted. Be meticulous in your methodology as you gather evidence and don't leap to conclusions.

 

You seem to have a perception of scientists as never challenging the mainstream. It's not true. You have to remember that for every scientist who writes a paper, there are a hundred scientists reading that paper looking for ways to refute it. Nobody in science can afford to rest on their laurels. With near global transparency for most of the scientific community, very little gets past their Take-Nothing-For-Granted filters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

To be fair, we can only theorise about what it is we see in the data. I'm saying that as a seismologist. Having said that, faults are particularly easy to see on good seismic data as they cut the stratigraphy often with dramatic effect. Further, countless "theorized" faults have been verified by subsequent drilling. As has already been pointed out, many faults are obvious from their surface expression.

 

Things get a lot murkier when we look at the deep earth, to be fair to the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, we can only theorise about what it is we see in the data.

Well, to be MOST fair, you shouldn't say "only theorize". I mean, we also take core samples, we do a lot of mining, lots of crawling into caves, fissures, faults, etc. It is not only a theoretical study, those theories are backed up by what is actually seen and measured as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, to be MOST fair, you shouldn't say "only theorize". I mean, we also take core samples, we do a lot of mining, lots of crawling into caves, fissures, faults, etc. It is not only a theoretical study, those theories are backed up by what is actually seen and measured as well.

 

Nit picking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.