Catastrophism+and+Uniformitarianism

= Paradigm shift case study - catastrophism and uniformitarianism = // Paradigm shifts and normal science // Thomas Kuhn (1) identified paradigm shifts as periods of revolution in which the prevailing views in science are re-assessed and ultimately replaced. These periods of revolution are distinct from 'normal science' in which scientists hold the prevailing paradigm and work within it. Kuhn argued that, once a paradigm shift is complete, one cannot continue to work in the scientific community unless one holds this dominant view, as this affects collaborative projects and sponsorship. The term paradigm initially applied to the analytical sciences, but has since been applied to social sciences and humanities, and has come to mean disagreement within the subject leading to new thought, without implying a total replacement of the previous view. This more colloquial use dilutes the original meaning of the term, losing the implication that without consensus, research cannot move forward.

// Catastrophism and uniformitarianism // Paradigm shifts have become synonymous with revolution, and hence the misconception has developed that these are rapid, sharply defined changes. This is not the case. Figure 1 shows a graphical representation of the change from a prevalent model of catastrophism to a model of uniformitarianism, seen in western philosophy, as beginning with Lyell's works (2). In the figure proponents of catastrophism are shown in red and of uniformitarianism in green. Lyell himself is shown in orange, as his works are the foundations of uniformitarianism. Dates used are rounded in 5s, and show the researchers' lifetimes, not just their professional career. Timings of key publications are marked on the chart as Xs. This representation shows the paradigm shift, and shows the stepwise, uneven manner of the change. It shows that it takes time for the shift to occur, in this case ~150 years.

// Misconceptions and the continuing debate // The major misconception in this field of research largely arises from the use of catastrophism by young earth creationists. Current use of catastrophism holds that this viewpoint is essentially a religious view. Owing to the timing and nature of the debate, many researchers working before the debate began had religious views; Cuvier, the main proponent of catastrophism, however, did not use the theory in a biblical framework, and presented his work without relating catastrophic events to biblical events such as Noah's flood (3). Subsequent researchers, such as Buckland and Jameson did use catastrophism within a religious framework, and it is this model which persists in present day use. A second misconception is in the definition of Uniformitarianism. Many modern proponents of catastrophism simplify uniformitarianism by defining is as 'the future can be predicted from the past' and that this precludes the existence of catastrophic events (4,5) and cite evidence of past catastrophic events as disproving uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism states essentially, that the rates and processes which occur in the present also occurred in the past, and that these observed processes can be used to model past process. It states that laws such as the law of horizontal deposition and the law of supposition only occur as long as nothing else occurs to disrupt it, either during the process or at a later time (6,7,8). Modern uniformitarianist models include catastrophic events, based on empirical evidence. Uniformitarianism is the accepted model concerning the earth; however, models of catastrophism persists outside the scientific world. Does this then mean that the paradigm shift is ongoing? The author Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979) was a proponent of catastrophism, summarising his views in 1942 (9) and in his book //Worlds in collision// in 1950 (10). Although as a psychologist writing populist books, he was considered to be outside the study of the Earth Sciences, his books reached a wide audience, and kept the viewpoint in the public domain. This last holds the key for understanding paradigm shifts; proponents of catastrophism today are generally working outside the earth sciences, while those within work within the uniformitarian framework. As such, the paradigm shift in the earth sciences is now complete.

// References // 1. Kuhn, T. S. 1962. //The structure of scientific revolutions//. University of Chicago press 2. Lyell, C. 1830. //Principles of Geology// (three volumes). London: Murray 3. See http://en.wikipedia.org.uk/catastrophism 4. See http://www.allaboutcreation.org/uniformitarianism.htm 5. See http://www.uniformitarianism.net 6. Steno, N. 1669. //Dissertationis prodromus//. Republished as Steno, N. 1916. //Dissertationis prodromus.// London: Macmillan and Company Ltd 7. Hutton, J. 1794. //An Investigation of the Principles of Knowledge and of the Progress of Reason, from Sense to Science and Philosophy//. Edinburgh: Strahan and Cadell 8. Lyell, C. 1830. //Principles of Geology// (three volumes). London: Murray 9. Velikovsky, I. 1942. Affidavit. Presented to the National Academy of Sciences 24th November 1942. Http://varchaive.org/ce/affidavit.htm// Worlds in collision. //MacMillan 10. Velikovsky, I. 1950. Worlds in collision.// MacMillan = =