[MSA-talk] American Mineralogist Special Collection 35: Applications of Fluid, Mineral and Melt Inclusions

Ganguly, Jibamitra - (ganguly) ganguly at email.arizona.edu
Mon Nov 20 14:35:30 EST 2017


I cannot help recalling the Eddington-Chandrashekhar conflict in connection with Bruce Yardley’s recollection of the HH Read story.
               A nineteen year old Indian graduate student in the Cambridge University came up with an equation in 1930, now known as the Chandrshekhar limit in Astrophysics, that finally led to the idea of black holes. Eddington was the most dominant figure in Astrophysics at that time and with his great style and authority, he attacked Chandrashekhar’s work as absolute nonsense, so much so that Chandrashekhar left England (accepted a position at the University of Chicago) and started working on different  types of problems, hoping  that one day his work will be accepted (perhaps he believed Max Planck’s famous saying that new breakthroughs in science get accepted not because the adversaries finally become convinced but because they finally die; science progresses by one funeral at a time).
               The Nobel Prize for Chandrashekhar for Chandrashekhar’s limit had to wait for fifty two years (all adversaries were dead by then). Despite his admiration for Eddington, Chandrashekhar lamented that Eddington had pushed major developments in Astrophysics by at least twenty years because of his opposition to Chandrashekhar’s limit . So I am not sure that dominant figures in science with great and authoritative style, such as Eddington and HH Read, always play constructive role in further developments of science; sometimes they seem to just blow their opposition apart.


Jiba Ganguly


-----------------------------------------
Jibamitra Ganguly
Professor Emeritus, Department of Geosciences
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Ganguly
________________________________
From: msa-talk-bounces at minlists.org <msa-talk-bounces at minlists.org> on behalf of Bruce Yardley <B.W.D.Yardley at leeds.ac.uk>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 3:52:46 AM
To: 'Frank Spera'; Frank Spera
Cc: MSA-talk at minlists.org; Matthew Steele-MacInnis
Subject: Re: [MSA-talk] American Mineralogist Special Collection 35: Applications of Fluid, Mineral and Melt Inclusions

There is a story I heard from several sources which may or may not be one of the occasions which Ian Carmichael recalled. Apparently when the young Graham Chinner presented his work on metamorphism in the Scottish Highlands, which included some of the first pressure/depth estimates, to the Geological Society, HH Read, who was the biggest figure in UK geology at the time, rose to his feet at the end and waved a platinum capsule around asking "are you trying to tell me that, because of some little capsule like this, there must have been 20 kilometres of rock above the Scottish Highlands?".

Well, my first comment is that it is a great pity we don't have more of that sort of showmanship in science today, but it is even more of a pity that it is very rare to have meetings where people from very different backgrounds with different expertise have to sit down and listen to each other and discuss their disagreements. Usually, if groups disagree, they each get their own session at Goldschmidt, GSA or wherever and pretend the other does not exist. I can think of numerous examples from recent years where people in one field operate within a bubble of assumptions which have been shown in another field to be untenable. In fact I am reviewing a paper like that right now. An excellent example is the divergence between geophysicists and petrologist/geochemists on the issue of water in the lower crust.

So beware of being too impressed by your 20/20 hindsight. Before the recognition of subduction processes it was very difficult to account for the fate of the large thickness of rock that had been removed by erosion from above metamorphic belts. If petrologists had not ignored this issue they would not have advanced metamorphic petrology so dramatically in the 1950s and 60s, but ultimately there had to be a reconciliation consistent with both the petrological results and the field evidence.

Bruce

-----Original Message-----
From: msa-talk-bounces at minlists.org [mailto:msa-talk-bounces at minlists.org] On Behalf Of Frank Spera
Sent: 17 November 2017 21:56
To: Frank Spera <spera at geol.ucsb.edu>
Cc: MSA-talk at minlists.org; Matthew Steele-MacInnis <steelema at ualberta.ca>
Subject: Re: [MSA-talk] American Mineralogist Special Collection 35: Applications of Fluid, Mineral and Melt Inclusions

It is interesting because Ian Carmichael   used to tell a story from the 1950's when he was a student in england...

something like this:
at  geological meetings where old school petrology guys (hammer and knapsack) would seek to undercut the new age experimental petrologists by remarking in the question period  after a experimental petrology presentation:

" How big is the mountain belt your believe your laboratory results  apply to ? " Answer : 100-1000 kms followed by "how big was your experimental charge ? "Ans 1cm x 0.5 cm

and then sit down with a big facial grin !

so it happens with every generation.
fs
> On Nov 17, 2017, at 1:46 PM, Dymek, Robert <rfdymek at wustl.edu> wrote:
>
> At some point, those officious leaders told Sorby that "one does not study mountains with microscopes."
>
> Robert F. Dymek, Ph.D.
> Professor of Geology
> Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences Rudolph Hall Washington
> University St. Louis, MO  63130
> 314-935-5344 (office)
> 314-935-7361 (facsimile)
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: msa-talk-bounces at minlists.org <msa-talk-bounces at minlists.org> on behalf of Frank Spera <spera at ucsb.edu>
> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 3:36:21 PM
> To: Juan Manuel Garcia Ruiz
> Cc: MSA-talk at minlists.org; Matthew Steele-MacInnis
> Subject: Re: [MSA-talk] American Mineralogist Special Collection 35:    Applications of Fluid, Mineral and Melt Inclusions
>
> After Sorby's talk, the president of the society at the time apparently commented that it was the least plausible paper he had ever heard presented."
>
>
> it's a pity that this aforementioned society president is not alive today.... he could serve well as trump's scientific advisor.(just joking, list police)
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 17, 2017, at 1:29 PM, Juan Manuel Garcia Ruiz <juanma.garciaruiz at gmail.com<mailto:juanma.garciaruiz at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> After Sorby's talk, the president of the society at the time apparently commented that it was the least plausible paper he had ever heard presented."
>
>

_______________________________________________
MSA-talk mailing list
MSA-talk at minlists.org
http://lists.minlists.org/mailman/listinfo/msa-talk
_______________________________________________
MSA-talk mailing list
MSA-talk at minlists.org
http://lists.minlists.org/mailman/listinfo/msa-talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.minlists.org/pipermail/msa-talk/attachments/20171120/a43474ed/attachment.htm>


More information about the MSA-talk mailing list