[Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Thread Index] [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Date Index]

Re: paleonet fantastic flint forms



 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: paleonet fantastic flint forms

To pick up on Andrew's point #3 (perception issues) I had a friend (Dr. Peter Chadwick) when I was a student at Liverpool University who gave up on an absolutely stellar career in large scale tectonic geology (I think he may have studied with Ramberg and subsequently did a Ph.D. on some pretty hairy structural problems in the Highlands of Scotland) in favor of work on perception - some of it applied to geological phenomena and some, I seem to recall, to do with hypnosis. I recall a lecture that he gave when I was teaching at the University of East Anglia in which he gave the Earth Science-leaning audience a whole series of tests. One involved various forms of folds in which "joining the dots" (Andrew's term) produced implications of buckling rather than shearing. We also were given deliberately normal distributions of shapes (c.f. a petrographic slide) in which all of us found either east/west or north/south preferred orientations. The final issue that I can remember had to do with bias in the field of view that we employ. Apparently we have this tendency to "sample" visual information mostly in the top half of the image - and from this partial base of data we do what Andrew refers to as "joining the dots" and rationalizing. Thus, it isn't difficult to see how people can make out faces, brains, genitalia, etc. on everything from chert nodules to the Moon.

I believe Pete Chadwick still works in the Psychology Department at Liverpool University.

Another book to take a look at might be The Birth and Development of the Geological Sciences by Frank Dawson Adams (a 1938 original reprinted by Dover in 1954.) There is a great chapter entitled "THE "GENERATION OF STONES"". (p.77)

Chris Baldwin

Andrew Rindsberg wrote:

Dear Ms. Gjerløff,

This is an interesting topic, and a few possibilities come to mind:

1. Dr. Richard G. Bromley, professor emeritus at the Dept. of Geology,
University of Copenhagen, has worked with chalk flints for most of his
career and may have some information on flint pseudofossils.

2. People have an innate ability to recognize faces, therefore we see faces
everywhere, even in a few lines. ;-) A few people lack this ability in
varying degrees, even to the distressing degree of not recognizing family
members on the street. This is prosopagnosia or 'face-blindness' and you may
be able to find more information about it on the Web.

3. I vaguely remember an article on common optical illusions as they affect
geologic mapping. (Does anyone remember where it is?) For example, there is
the tendency to link dots into lines when dealing with remote imagery, which
can sometimes lead to dramatic mistakes, e.g., the mapping of canals on
Mars.

4. Every academic paleontologist has been presented pseudofossils by people
who are absolutely certain that they have found (or their grandfather found)
a fossilized toe, wasp's nest, egg, footprint, etc. It is not the
misconception, but the certainty, that paleontologists find puzzling;
perhaps it is due to the emotional weight of having a possibly valuable
specimen or a valued family memento. Of course, there are many others who
are broad-minded about their finds.

5. A few centuries ago, there were no professional paleontologists, and the
earliest works on paleontology are full of such wonders. See Martin
Rudwick's wonderful book on the early history of paleontology, 'The Meaning
of Fossils' (2nd edition).

When you publish your work (which I presume may be in a historical journal),
please post the citation on PaleoNet so interested paleontologists may find
it readily.

Andrew K. Rindsberg
Geological Survey of Alabama
Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA