| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
Norm MacLoed said (in part):
> Did our science
> change into somewhat of a "single issue" discipline in the '70's? If so,
> why and has this been a good thing? If not, what were the burning questions
> of previous times and did they burn as brightly in the technical and
> popular literature?
I vaguely bridge the time gap from late 60's on, and yes, paleo in
the early 1970's metamorphosed from a systematics/discovery-driven
science to a paradigm-based...whatever. Just prior to punctuated
equilibrium, I perceived a mania for studies on Archean/Proterozoic
floras and modern carbonate-shelf analogs: it seemed everyone was
going to the Bahamas. Perhaps we all needed a vacation from
systematics.
Is modern paleo better than old-fashioned find-and-describe-faunas
paleo? The answer is idiosyncratic. I note that popular fancy and
student interest is admixed between dinosaur-hunters (f-a-d-f types)
and extinction-modelers-and-doomsayers. This leads me to assume
there is room to appreciate both modes of the science. I believe one
can easily segue (sp?) between the two without imparing one's
vision, and that lacking a measure of either is purblind. Personally,
I find f-a-d-f paleo more fun than e-m-a-d work by far.
It is, however, woefully hard to obtain grant money for systematics
without a fashionable hook in the proposal related to one of the hot,
current paradigms (such as environmental change, the current craze),
unless the research deals with dinosaurs or hominids. This is not a
positive development.
Just idle reflections.
David Schwimmer
Dep't of Chemistry & Geology
Columbus College, Columbus GA 31907-5645
schwimmer_david@cc.csg.peachnet.edu
No, I'm not Ross.
Partial index: