Re:Norman MacLeod's opinion of Alvarez' dispassion

["King, Norm" <nking.ucs@smtp.usi.edu>]

Jeffrey Martz wrote (9/28/98; 12:34p):

>> The recent Alvarez book presents a very one-sided view of the ongoing 
controversy and was described by one recent reviewer in the Times 
Literary
Supplement (UK) as advocacy masquerading as science. A more balanced and
well documented treatment can be found in...<<

>     That was not my impression of the book.  I though Alvarez presented
a fairly objective account of the the devlopment of the K-T impact
theory, and was remarkably candid about discussing his own serious errors
over the last 18 years. . [snip]. . So, the book's MAIN points (that an 
impact occurred, and that it likely occured at Chixulub) aren't 
neccessarily a threat to any other ideas on dinosaur extinction that 
might be floating
around, in case that is what you were worried about.  
      I don't think describing T-Rex and the Crater of Doom as "advocacy
masquerading as science_" is any more fair then using such a label on any
other scientific paper or publication offering evidence to support a
theory.<

I agree with Jeff's analysis.  Unfortunately, in my experience, you can 
tell what side of an issue a person accepts by how they characterize the 
opposing viewpoints/people.  But, if you ever spoke with Walter Alvarez, 
you would find him humble, reasoned, and open to considering alternatives 
to his own ideas.

If you are objective about it, you won't ignore the possibility that the 
reason Alvarez can make such a good case is that he is correct.  However, 
you also accept that he might not be correct, and are open to considering 
the impact of new information.

I will repeat something I said a long time ago:  actually viewing in 
person some of the materials from the K-T boundary might make a big 
difference in how you feel about the supposed bolide collision; you would 
know that at least some K-T phenomena cannot be explained by volcanism in 
India or anywhere else, as the literature could lead you to believe.  Not 
meaning to reopen a can of worms, but in the context of earlier 
discussions on this list in which I didn't participate, other factors 
being equal, I would place more credence in the opinions of someone who 
has actually seen the data in question than those of someone who has only 
read about the data.  So, we don't need to be impressed by the opinion of 
a reviewer in the Times Literary Supplement.  Once the reviewer got 
beyond checking grammar, organization, and sentence construction, he was 
out of his league.


*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Norman R. King                                       tel:  (812) 464-1794
Department of Geosciences                            fax:  (812) 464-1960
University of Southern Indiana
8600 University Blvd.
Evansville, IN 47712                      e-mail:  nking.ucs@smtp.usi.edu