Oreskes 1999 Required Reading (lec 5)

How did Naomi Oreskes feel about being a geology major between 1976 and 1978?

Oreskes felt lucky to be a geology major during this time, as it was a period of revolutionary change with the rise of plate tectonics. She considered it a good time to be an aspiring earth scientist

How did Naomi Oreskes's professors at Imperial College in London (when she was studying abroad as a junior) feel about the new idea of plate tectonics?

Her professors in England viewed plate tectonics as a pleasing confirmation of a long-suspected idea, in contrast to the radical revolution it was portrayed as in the United States. They saw it as something that illuminated their understanding, but the light it shed was uneven.

What book did Naomi Oreskes's 1978 flatmate in London show her, and what did it say about moving continents? Who wrote it?

Her flatmate showed her a dog-eared copy of Arthur Holmes's 1945 textbook, which she had read in elementary school. This book discussed the idea of moving continents.

What did Naomi Oreskes learn while working as a professional geologist in Australia (1981-84)?

Oreskes learned that many Australian geologists were familiar with and believed in continental drift in the 1940s and 1950s. She also learned that some of these geologists were ridiculed by American geologists for their views at international meetings. She found that other theories of crustal mobility, such as the expanding Earth hypothesis, were also being considered

What tectonic theory did Naomi Oreskes's boss in Australia (Roy Woodall) prefer over plate tectonic theory (when she worked for him)?

Her boss, Roy Woodall, who was the director of exploration for a mining company, was open to and periodically circulated papers on the expanding earth hypothesis

While working in Australia, what two things did Naomi Oreskes learn about the recent history of geological thought?

She learned that the recent history of earth science was much more complex and nationalistic than her professors and textbooks had suggested, as well as more interesting than her readings in the philosophy of science

What did Naomi Oreskes's English training and Australia experience teach her about how to do geology? And, after returning to the US in 1984 for graduate school in geology, how did this approach mesh with that of her grad-school professors? How did they prefer to do geology?

Her English training and Australian experience taught her an inductive methodology, where scientific problems originated in field observations. However, her American graduate school professors disdained this, favoring a deductive strategy that relied primarily on laboratory analysis. They dismissed "outcrop" geology.

What did her grad-school professors say about her preferred approach to geology? What two things/strategies did they recommend instead? What two characteristics does Naomi Oreskes associate with the professors who were recommending these things/strategies to her?

Her professors discouraged her inductive approach, recommending instead that she pursue a deductive strategy and rely on laboratory analysis. She associated these recommendations with younger professors and those who had achieved a high level of professional recognition

Induction (from specific observations to general rules) and deduction (from general rules to particulars) are two different philosophical approaches to inquiry. Which philosophical approach was preferred by North American geologists and which by European geologists?

American professors seemingly preferred a deductive strategy, which relies primarily on the tools of laboratory analysis. They reportedly disdained inductive science and dismissed "outcrop" geology.

European training seemingly inculcated an inductive methodology, in which scientific problems originated in the observation of geological phenomena in the field