SH Comments
Reged: Feb 16 2004
Posts: 1056
|
|
This thread is for comments about The Port Orford Meteorite, by J. D. Adams.
|
Gib
Unregistered
|
|
Very interesting!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Interesting, sure. But:
"Plotkin maintained that Dr. Evans was poorly trained as a geologist and dependent on government contracts for his livelihood. This is debatable, given his background as a medical doctor and his fine reputation..."
What does his background as a medical doctor have to do with the man's trustworthiness or competence as a geologist? Any geologist or archeologist knows that a sample or artifact taken out of context can't be properly understood. If it was interesting enough to take, it should have been noted on a map; the man was incompetent, if not a hoaxer too. I would not take his claims seriously.
I'd like to know what David C. Kopaska-Merkel, geologist and spec poet, thinks of this article/Evans/the PO Meteorite.
|
J. D. Adams
Unregistered
|
|
The passage you refer to states that his livelihood wasn’t imperiled by his lack of formal training in geology. Dr. Evans had other means of generating income besides being a geologist, and therefore his financial situation was a minor problem. I agree that there is little impact his medical background and reputation might have had on his knowledge as a geologist, however that is not the point of the discussion.
There were no maps available at the time that showed the area with any real clarity, and Dr. Evans would have had difficulty describing his exact position at any given time. His samples were mostly of a mundane nature (and not only geologic samples) and so his journal description of his trip into the mountains would have been appropriate record-keeping for the survey he was doing. Without formal training as a geologist, his failure to see the Port Orford sample as a meteorite should not be taken as an indication of bad character.
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Don't formerly trained scientists in the field sometimes fail to see the full importance of a sample? That, I think, is why they take samples back to the lab -- to get another POV.
I can't vouch for Dr. Evans's character. But if his job was to survey Oregon, if he was traveling through unmapped wilderness and didn't even sketch a map or give some useful indication of where he picked up his samples, he did a lousy job. I could understand this if he had some other reason to be tramping through the region, and just happened to pick up an interesting rock, and when he got back to civilization he didn't really know where he found it.
As it is, I can only assume that he was incompetent; or planned to go back and dig up that treasure on his own; or made up the whole thing to get people riled up. Didn't Heinlein have a story about seeding the moon with diamonds to get people to settle there?
At any rate -- thanks for the article, JD Adams. Dr. Evans is an interesting character. I wonder if washed his hands before examining a wound; if his incompetence in a geological survey was a sample of contemporary ignorance.
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
According to the American Philosophical Society Publication “Dr. John Evans, U.S. Geologist”, Dr. Evans was a member of three scientific societies: the Boston Society of Natural History, the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, and the Academy of Science of St. Louis. In March 1851, on the recommendations of Dr. David Dale Owen (U.S. Geologist), Dr. John Evans was appointed “to institute Geological researches on the mine lines of the public land surveys about to be commenced in Oregon” by the Secretary of the Department of the Interior. The publication goes on to describe that the notes gathered by Dr. Evans were of the highest caliber, as was the case with his exploration of the Midwest. Dr. Evans endured many hardships during the survey, and it was this, and not any kind of mismanagement, that compelled Dr. Evans to spend some of his own funds to complete the survey. The publication notes that the goals of the survey were met by Dr. Evans, and his field notes and diary were more than sufficient.
The facts don’t support any valid claim of incompentence on the part of Dr. John Evans. Although his position as a geologist is basically honorary, his documentation and methods were sound and thorough.
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
What is the point in conducting a geological survey if you don't make a map, if you don't take good notes of the terrain, if you don't know which minerals are likely to be found where -- according to your samples?
If "his field notes and diary were more than sufficient" and "his documentation and methods were sound and thorough," we would know where Evans picked up that remarkable sample. And the others too.
If he won praise from his contemporaries for his work, I can only think that such incompetence was acceptable at the time. But that doesn't mean that it should be acceptable now, or that there's credible evidence that such a meteorite exists in the area. It might. It might not.
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Well, mapmaking was not the purpose of the survey. That would require different logistics than the survey Evans was completing, which included determining the elevation of mountain ranges and a general register of local mineralogy. The intent was never to note the exact location of a specific sample, which could only be done today using GPS.
Actually, Evans did describe the location of the meteorite in the most accurate terms available at the time, and also noted that landslides could easily conceal the location.
Evans’ survey didn’t require the analytical skills of a seasoned geologist; he was merely instructed to collect mineral samples. The job required fortitude, and the ability to deal with a hostile environment. Evans earlier performance in the Midwest demonstrated that he was the perfect man for this job.
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
I'd think that finding the elevation of mountain ranges would require many of the same tools and skills as mapmaking. Topology, for ex. GPS makes things more exact, sure, but people have been making useful maps without it for ages. Even an amateur geologist ought to know enough geography -- the disciplines intersect in so many ways -- to make a map and see the importance of showing where things are. A picture's worth a thousand words, and all that.
While I found the article and this discussion interesting, the case for this meteorite doesn't seem very credible. Adams brings up some skepticism of Evans in the article, but doesn't seem to take it very seriously. The existence of such a meteorite is not as far-fetched as that of Sasquatch or ESP; we literally have tons of evidence that meteorites exist. Did this one? It's debatable. We have a sample, which might have come from another site. We don't know unless we can go back "to the scene of the crime," and verify Evans's claim. A scientist (even an amateur geologist) can hoax, can be mistaken, can deceive himself. If we just take his word for it, we're the fools -- whether he was right or not.
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Including Bob Harrison’s sample, there were two samples, both taken from the same area of the coast range, both analyzed by prominent geologists who arrived at the same conclusion of meteoric origin.
The article shows a balanced view of the entire story, without a disposition towards either argument. All of the facts have been revealed, including the Bob Harrison incident that supports the existence of the meteorite. With an unbiased look at the POM story, a different picture emerges.
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
