Slashdot Mirror
Mount St. Helens Eruption Baffles Scientists
jurt1235 writes "Mount St. Helens, which started erupting 15 months ago, is still erupting. The weird part is, by now every 3 seconds 10 cubic yards of lava is coming out of the volcano but scientists cannot determine from where it is coming anymore. From the article: 'The volume is greater than anything that could be standing in a narrow 3-mile pipe. That suggests resupply from greater depths, which normally would generate certain gases and deep earthquakes. Neither is being detected.'"
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it) but 'That's funny...'" --Isaac Asimov
While I am not familiar with this particular AP reporter, I would prefer to see a news release by the USGS on the subject rather than one from a news service. I was a USGS geologist in 1980 and did field work measuring the bulge prior to the May 1980 eruption. Anytime we were interviewed regarding the science, the resulting published story was almost always incredibly skewed/magled/distorted crap.
FTA:
Ah... so obviously it's *NOT* coming from greater depths? Bzzzt. Wrong answer. While it may be true, it artificially creates a mystery where none should be.When the observations don't fit the way things are understood, there are only two possibilities: either the measurements we made are wrong, or what we understood previously was wrong.
If it can be readily deduced that there is not enough volume in their original estimate of the conduit's size to accomodate the quantity of lava being produced, then either we are wrong about how much lava is coming up, the lava is coming from somewhere deeper, or the conduit's size was estimated incorrectly. Let's assume (probably safely) that the measurements they took on the amount of lava coming up were correct.
Considering how little we really know about what goes on beneath the surface of the Earth, I'd say that these last two options still have a whole lot of merit. It's not entirely inconceivable, after all, that whatever they think they should have already found if they existed have simply not yet been found due to the limitations of current technology.
Stories like this artificially create apparent mysteries in a field where none belong.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"I study oil and gold extraction (I blog about gold mines, too) and I am amazed at how often scientists are proven wrong. I know that it is heretical to say that on slashdot (I was blasted about it earlier this morning on this very forum), but we as a society seem to have too much faith in scientific research finding facts that turn out to be just plain wrong."
/sarcasm
That's true. Faith based reasoning is far more likely to lead us to correct results.
The REASON we find out that scientific reasearch frequently turns out to be "wrong" is because the whole process of science is meant to test whether what we think to be true, is. Unless you are an omniscient being, you can never know for sure what is going on outside of your direct sensory range - so to be useful, to make predictions beyond that, science HAS to speculate and come up with theories. After a theory is put out there, then it is tested and probed. As our measurements become more precise, or we develop new tools to see in ways we could not before, we find that the theories may no longer match our expanded horizons. So we go back and attempt to improve the theory, which leads some amateurs to say the previous theories were "wrong" - a useless, emotional characterization, since no theory can be ever be "right" - the best one can be is consistent with all presently known data. Newton's theory of gravitation is "wrong", but for a "wrong" theory, it sure is accurate. And the whole "spherical earth" theory may be wrong, but it's good to 1 part in 1,000. Even the flat-earth theory was good for its time; when you live 99% of your life in a small patch of it, the difference between 8 inches of curvature per mile and 0 inches of curvature per mile is pretty small.
"It really bugs me, actually, that these "scientists" we so admire may be geniuses, or they might just be grant-hunters. I know I always look for the best income for the least amount of work."
In that case, it sounds like you should admire the grant-hunters. They are getting the best income for their minimal scientific amounts of work, right?
"What else have these same scientists theorized that may not be true? Is oil possibly a renewable resource (meaning there is near unlimited amounts deeper within the earth waiting to bubble up)? Is it possible to battle the build-up of CO2, or is much of it coming out of the earth and not manmade? How much of the global climate is an effect of heat expelled from inside our crust, and how much is from "eroding" atmosphere?"
All possible. But highly unlikely. At the temperatures and pressures found deeper in the earth, oil tends to break down and so we don't find large reserviors of it below a certain depth. But perhaps, through some mechanism (of which we have no clue nor any prima face evidence that it exists), there is oil being spontaneously generated deep in the earth. CO2? Possibly it is coming in significant quantites out of the crust. But atmospheric CO2 seems to correlate very closely with the industrial revolution and the first widespread use of heat-engines by humans. As for heat expelled from the crust, that's one of the more measurable variables, thanks to the infrared imaging capabilities of many geostationary wx satellites (funded publicly). The present amount of evidence indicates that it negligble, but it could be wrong. Of course, aliens could be deliberately screwing with our satellites and messing with the evidence....
Anything is possible. But when dollars for research, whether public or private, are limited, you have to make educated choices as for what is more likely and what is not, based on the best knowledge you presently have; and right now, those theories are pretty low down on the probability scale.
"I rarely thank AP writers for their research, but in this case I have to. I'm glad the spotlight is being shined on the fallacies that come out of the mouths of scientists looking for more research dollars (on the backs of the taxpayers). I believe we DO need
Also, one of the problems with science reporting is that it's largely gee-whiz stuff whose intention is to entertain and alarm
Just as 'sports news' has become 'sports entertainment' so 'science news' becomes 'science entertainment'.
Just as the rugby sevens and the one day cricket have turned sporting events into fancy-dress clown parades, so will go the way of science conferences.
Mark my words; scientists turning up at conference dressed up as Elvis, schoolgirls or king kong hoping to improve their TV ratings.
It'll be the only way to get funding... whats next??
A reality-Science show, made for TV!!!
We'll be reminiscing about the good old days of the 'intelligent design vs evolution' debates!
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Part of the scientific method is proving that other scientist are wrong.
I think that the problem that the original poster was trying to point out, is that a lot of people, especially here on slashdot, take the current mainstream scientific theories as gospel, when most of the time these theories are eventually proven wrong.
Science can't explain something? It must mean that volcanoes are formed by intelligent eruption! From now on, geology textbooks will need stickers claiming that Plate Tectonics is just a theory, and that there are other theories that explain vulcanism -- like Loki raging against his chains, or something.
Because Science is based on understanding of facts; science does not get "reworked" when new facts surface, it simply incorporates the new material and new conclusions are drawn which take into account the new information.
Religion requires strict adherence to the laws of said religion, because in a monotheistic religious atmosphere, almost always the god in question is perceived as wholly good and perfect, with no evil, and at the same time is the source of the religious laws. If there's a flaw in the doctrine of the religion, it would disprove or contradict god, and if that happens, then god is not perfect. It throws the entire system off. Religion cannot deal with change in human understanding of any subject where the church has previously stated something as fact - there's no mechanism to account for it.
Hence why I'm an athiest. Or, if you want to get philosophical about it, my god is the scietific method. I see no need to explain things via the supernatural; to me everything falls into "things we understand" and "things we don't understand yet". I do not believe that there is anything at all in the entire universe that science could not explain given all the facts.
Also, an interesting thought occured to me when I was studying for my Classics minor - we wouldn't have a lot of the modern religious hangups if we still had a polytheistic religious society, a. la. Ancient Greece. That type of system has gods who make mistakes, reneg on their word, and screw up all the time. If that were the case here, we wouldn't have all the hangups.
~Will
**note I'd capitalize Greece long before god. The world needs more athiests. Stand up and be counted.
sig?