Comments on: Should Keller's Thin Sections Be Independently Tested?

By: Graham Sowa

Graham Sowa — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 16:20:49 +0000

I am traveling to Haiti for three months this summer and will be going to Beloc to get some samples of the K/T boundry Tektites. Does anyone know of the exact location of the outcrop or exposure? If anyone hear would like some samples I would be happy to bring them back with me.

Please email
grahamsowa@gmail.com

Thank you,
Graham

By: Louis Hissink

Louis Hissink — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 00:47:09 +0000

Re # 24

Well then to be even handed, both sets should be independently checked. Interesting to see what the reaction would be. Losing thin section often happens I discovered, another archiving issue. Usually happens with absent minded academic types who don’t understand the importance of the data.

This K-P issue remains too emotional for the moment.

By: Hans Erren

Hans Erren — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 12:09:26 +0000

AFAIK smit suggested to test Kellers slides, keller responded that smit could use his own slides.

By: Louis Hissink

Louis Hissink — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 10:52:33 +0000

Re # 22

Hans,

Keller suggested Smit should have his slides tested, not hers, per se, or do you understand it differently?

By: Hans Erren

Hans Erren — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 10:42:11 +0000

Of course should the thin sections be indepently tested!
Let me give you an example: In 1988 I was working in the Mineralogical Museum in Delft, which also holds holotypes of indonesian triassic foraminafera. On request from a researcher in the museum of national history museum in London, and with permission of the curator, I removed a chip from the holotype and brought it to London.
That’s how science should work.

By: Louis Hissink

Louis Hissink — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 06:59:33 +0000

Re # 20

Jaime,

Obviously I wrote a “courageous” statement – I should these things out beforehand…..

In any case this Keller/Smit spat is getting interesting as I am drafting a short article on it and looking at the various other papers, which I’ll put up elsewhere once it gets published in dead tree form in March.

By: Jaime Arbona

Jaime Arbona — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 01:57:37 +0000

Re # 18 "I mean, no one argues over the presence of the sun or moon do they." Louis, you should look here.

By: Louis Hissink

Louis Hissink — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 01:44:33 +0000

#18

(concluding para disappeared in the RSS feed reply !)

So independent testing in this case would be mandatory since the evidence (chemical altered forams)is not self evident. Why Keller did not have the data independently checked before publication is another matter – and here we get into the ego area.

By: Louis Hissink

Louis Hissink — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 00:57:22 +0000

What concerns me is that evidence for this theory is so scant – dolomitized forams that need acute observational skills to identify them.

This is much like science at the thresh-hold of observation – where things are imagined to occur and where complex statistical analyses are required to extract the evidence.

And the reason there is so much acrimony is because the physical evidence doesn’t jump out at you, so it reduces to a matter of belief, and hence stops being science.

I mean, no one argues over the presence of the sun or moon do they.

By: ET SidViscous

ET SidViscous — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 18:46:05 +0000

No problem here. Like I said I was just curious.