A response to "J Harlan Bretz: A Heresy Justified"

----------------------------
From: macrae@geo.ucalgary.ca (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.archaeology,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,alt.christnet,alt.fan.publius
Subject: Re: Human fossils in coal  [really: J. Harlen Bretz]  REALLY LONG!
Followup-To: talk.origins
Date: 18 Apr 1996 20:47:01 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary
Lines: 293
Message-ID: <4l69o5$hh0@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>
References: <4l29ic$4ps@julie.teleport.com>
Reply-To: macrae@geo.ucalgary.ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: @pandora.geo.ucalgary.ca
Xref: news.ucalgary.ca talk.origins:176034 alt.archaeology:3884 sci.skeptic:143350 alt.fan.publius:13555

Followups set to talk.origins.

In article <4l29ic$4ps@julie.teleport.com> walter@teleport.com (walter  
alter) writes:
> 
> >	However, realize that it can be done.  J Harlan Bretz 
> >did it.  (I also realize that a lot of people belittled Bretz 
> >without ever seeing the Coulee Country.   When people actually 
> >went there, a lot more of them understood it.)
> 
> 
> 
> J. HARLAN BRETZ AND THE NORTHWEST SCABLANDS: A HERESY JUSTIFIED

	Another canned post from Walter.  Thanks, Walter.

	Well, I was finally motivated to compose something in response to  
this, based mostly on the following reference and some of Bretz's  
publications:

Waitt, R.B., 1995.  Scores of gigantic, successively smaller Lake Missoula  
floods through channeled scabland and Columbia Valley.  IN:  Swanson, D.A.  
and Haugerd, R.A. (eds.), Geologic Field Trips in the Pacific Northwest,  
Annual Meeting of the Geological Society of America, Seattle, Washington,  
October 24-27, 1994, Volume 1, p.1K-1 to 1K-88.

	This is a great, up-to-date summary of the evidence for the floods  
responsible for the channeled scablands.  There have been some interesting  
developments lately on the failure modes of the glacial ice dam, which are  
thought to have produced about 100 jokulhaups ("catastrophic" floods  
triggered when water pressure lifts the glacier and the water flows  
beneath).  These increased in frequency and decreased in volume over time  
as the glaciers retreated and the water was able to lift the ice at lower  
and lower lake levels.  The paper is written as a field guide, so anyone  
could go out and see the evidence for themselves.  I'm tempted to drive  
down there myself.  Here is what Waitt has to say about the history of  
Bretz's hypothesis:

[p.1K-2]
""Spokane Flood" debate"
"In a series of papers beginning in 1923, J. Harlen Bretz argued the  
astonishing idea that the channeled scabland and its attributes orginated  
by stupendous flood, which he called the "Spokane Flood" (Bretz, 1923b,  
1925, 1928a, 1928b, 1928c, 1929, 1930b, 1932).  This hypothesis sparked a  
famous and spirted controversy; several rival ideas intent on accounting  
for the scablands by means other than giant flood appeared in the 1920s  
through 1940s."

"The "Spokane Flood" controversy became a _cause_celebre_ in American  
geology and is usually interpreted as a contest of ideas between  
neocatastrophist Bretz and a platoon of diehard gradualists, an image  
Bretz himself promoted.  Doubtless it is true as a philosophical  
underpinning, but in my opinion Bretz's direct and immediate problems were  
the remoteness of the field area (in the 1920s) and his inability to  
explain the origin of an almost unbelievable volume of water delivered  
swiftly.  In his numerous reports Bretz rarely asked about a water source,  
and then only in a brief sentence or two devoid of analysis.  Bretz (1925)  
thus suggested that the water might have originated by almost  
instantaneous climatic melting of the Cordilleran icesheet, or perhaps  
subglacial volcanism melted part of the icesheet.  He supported neither  
idea with theory or field evidence and even discounted the  
climatic-melting notion."

"Not long after these brief speculations appear, J.T. Pardee writes Bretz  
(3 June 1925) inquiring "whether you have considered the possibility of  
the sudden draining of a glacial lake" to produce the water required for  
an enormous "Spokane Flood?"  Pardee is thinking of 500-mi^3 Pleistocene  
glacial Lake Missoula in western Montana that he had identified and  
described (Pardee, 1910).  Bretz ignores Pardee.  In a presentation in  
Washington a year and a half later, Bretz (1927) repeats his previous two  
suggestions, with which ensuing discussants are justly dissatisfied.   
Bretz defends neither, responding "my interpretations of the channeled  
scabland should stand or fall on the scabland phenomena themselves."   
After additional reports detailing ever-broadening areas of field  
evidence, Bretz finally calls on Lake Missoula, [p.1K-3] but just in  
abstract (Bretz, 1930a), as a possible water source.  In his final report  
of that period (Bretz, 1932) glacial lake Missoula appears only in a  
generalized illustration and its caption -- as an afterthought.  Perhaps  
his readers take this idea as merely another desperate grasping at straws,  
and like the earlier speculations, this one is unsupported by field  
evidence or rationale."

"Yet Bretz's scablands *evidence* was astonishing, and most of his  
descriptions remain today as fresh and accurate as when written.  Even now  
one grasps Bretz's evidence most firmly by viewing it _in_the_field_.   
Insofar as eastern Washington lies far from the eastern cities, few of the  
skeptics in the 1920s could review Bretz's evidence firsthand, no matter  
how much or how well he describes it, across however much terraine, in  
however many reports.  Bretz's most revealing illustrations appear in  
later reports -- 1928, 1930, 1932 -- after which comes depression, war,  
and thus 15 years of impeded travel.  Lacking both firsthand field  
observations and a plausible explanation of the water, skpetics were  
unwilling to accept a starkly new interpretation."

"In the 1930s-1940s, several hypotheses attempted to account for the  
channeled scablands by mechanisms short of cataclysmic flood.  The  
alternative hypotheses included glaciation of the area of the channeled  
scablands (Hodge, 1934; Hobbs, 1943, 1947), sequential moderate-scale  
flooding around a succession of hundreds of gigantic ice jams (Hodge,  
1934; Allison, 1933, 1941), and liesurely dissection of glaciofluvial fill  
(Flint, 1938).  Two of these (Hodge, Hobbs) are devoid of field evidence,  
contrasting with Bretz's cornucopia."

"Finally, Pardee (1940, 1942) begins to answer the question he posed to  
Bretz 15 years earlier: he reports evidence such as giant water-current  
dunes revealing colossal discharge from glacial Lake Missoula -- a  
gigantic flood headed for Bretz's channeled scabland.  On a fieldtrip  
after Pardee's 1940 presentation, Flint defends his dissected-fill  
hypothesis unsuccessfully; the trip participants find Bretz's giant flood  
explains the field relations better (H.A. Meyerhoff, written commun.,  
1972).  Bretz's final field season in 1952 reveals new evidence for giant  
flood in the channeled scabland -- especially giant current dunes (Bretz  
and others, 1956) -- and this report soundly refutes the rival hypotheses.   
The report completely vindicates Bretz and his great-flood theory and ends  
effective opposition.  Much later Baker (1973) shows that Bretz's  
extensive qualitative observations are generally consistent with  
principles of open-channel hydraulics, cloaking Bretz' once-heretical  
theory in quantitative respectability."

References:

Allison, I.S., 1933.  New version of the Spokane flood.  Geological  
Society of America Bulletin, v.44, p.675-722.
--, 1941.  Flint's fill hypothesis for channeled scabland.  Journal of  
Geology, v.49, p.54-73.

Baker, V.R., 1973.  Paleohydrology and sedimentology of Lake Missoula  
flooding in eastern Washington.  Geological Society of America Special  
Paper 144, p.1-79.

Bretz, J.H., 1923a.  Glacial drainage on the Columbia Plateau.  Geological  
Society of America Bulletin, v.34, p.573-608.
--, 1923b.  The Channeled Scabland of the Columbia Plateau.  Journal of  
Geology, v.31, p.617-649.
--, 1925.  The Spokane flood beyond the Channeled Scablands.  Jounral of  
Geology, v.33, p.97-115, 236-259.
--, 1927.  Channeled Scabland and the Spokane Flood.  Journal of  
Washington Academy of Sciences, v.18, p.200-211.
--, 1928a.  Alternate hypotheses for channeled scabland.  Journal of  
Geology, v.36, p.193-223, 312-341.
--, 1928b.  Bars of Channeled Scabland.  Geological Society of America  
Bulletin, v.39, p.643-702.
--, 1928c.  The Channeld Scabland of eastern Washington.  Geographical  
Review, v.18, p.446-477.
--, 1929.  Valley deposits immediately east of the Channeled Scabland of  
Washington.  Journal of Geology, v.37, p.393-427, 505-541.
--, 1930a.  Lake Missoula and the Spokane Flood.  Geological Society of  
America Bulletin, v.41, p.92-93.
--, 1930b.  Valley deposits immediately west of the channeled scabland.   
Journal of Geology, v.38, p.385-422.
--, 1932.  The Grand Coulee.  American Geographical Society, Special  
Publication 15, p.1-89.
Bretz, J.H.; Smith, H.T.U.; and Neff, G.E., 1956.  Channeled Scabland of  
Washington -- new data and interpretations.  Geological Society of America  
Bulletin, v.67, p.957-1049.

Hobbs, W.H., 1943.  Discovery in eastern Washington of a new lobe of the  
Pleistocene continental glacier.  Science, v.98, p.227-230.
--, 1947.  The glacial history of the Scabland and Okanogan lobes,  
Cordilleran continental glacier.  Ann Arbor, Michigan, J.W. Edwards,  
privately printed, 40p.

Hodge, E.T., 1934.  Origin of the Washington scabland.  Northwest Science,  
v.8, p.4-11.

Flint, R.F., 1938.  Origin of the Cheney-Palouse scabland tract,  
Washington.  Geological Soecity of America Bulletin, v.48, p.203-232.

Pardee, J.T., 1910.  The glacial Lake Missoula.  Journal of Geology, v.18,  
p.376-396.
--, 1940.  Ripple marks (?) in glacial Lake Missoula, Montana.  Geological  
Society of America Bulletin, v.51, p.2028-2029.
--, 1942.  Unusual currents in glacial Lake Missoula, Montana.  Geological  
Society of America Bulletin, v.53, p.1569-1599.


> It is now generally agreed that between 15,000 and 12,800 years ago more
> than 40 tremendous deluges of almost inconceivable force and dimensions
> swept across large parts of the Columbia River drainage.  They were the
> greatest scientifically documented floods known to have occurred in
> North America. Nearly 16,000 square miles were inundated to depths of
> hundreds of feet.  Swollen by the flood waters, the Columbia grew to
> contain ten times the flow of all the rivers in the world today and 60
> times the flow of the Amazon River.  Geologist J. Harlan Bretz's
> discovery and eventual vindication did not come easily.  Considerable
> imaginative understanding was necessary to bring together the story of
> these floods and it was not a story that his fellow geologists wanted to
> hear. As a result, Bretz was faced with two challenges, 
> first, the interpretation of the complicated geological events and,
> second, the arduous task of winning over his skeptical colleagues.
> 
> Bretz knew that the very idea of catastrophic flooding would threaten
> and anger the geological community. And here's why: among geologists in

..

> it the duty of science to be openminded?  Well, of course, this is what
> we might expect, if we assume the scientific community is more rational
> than other segments of society.  But scientists, fortunately or
> unfortunately, are as human as the rest of us and as prone to
> irrationality, limiting habits (7f thinking, and (saddest of all) 
> professional spite.  Bretz's initial hesitation is fully understandable. 
> There are not many of us eager to invite the scorn and hostility of our
> peers and colleagues.

	This is an exaggeration.  Bretz's original proposal lacked two key  
items: 1) a mechanism for producing the huge volumes of water necessary,  
and 2) evidence that excluded all other possible interpretations to the  
satisfaction of most scientists.  While philosophical differences *may*  
have been an influence, they are not sufficient to account for the  
reaction Bretz received.  In fact, with the eventual availability of more  
evidence, a plausible mechanism, and evidence for that specific mechanism  
(e.g., Pardee's work), most geologists quickly accepted Bretz's  
hypothesis.


[attempt to characterise "catastrophism" and "uniformitarianism" as a  
strict dichotomy]

> The very word "Catastrophism" was heinous in the ears of geologists.  To
> think in terms of massive, precipitous changes (beyond the occasional
> earthquake or volcano) was unacceptable, and the very idea of a sudden,
> colossal flood smacked too much of Biblical thinking, of a return to
> Noah, the ark, and the fifteen cubit depth (22.5 feet) of water which
> drowned the world (Genesis 7:20).  It was a step backwards, a betrayal
> of all that geological science had
> fought to gain.  It was heresy of the worst order.

	Even if this was true, Bretz's original proposal still had  
problems.  He did a fantastic job of documentation of the evidence, but  
more was needed, and a plausible mechanism was required.  These are not  
unrealistic demands when unusual interpretations are made, and in the face  
of appropriate documentation, *even* supposed "heresy of the worst order"  
is accepted by scientists, as Bretz's example demonstrates.  Rather than  
emphasizing supposed philosophical reasons why scientists were initially  
skeptical about Bretz's hypothesis, you should be emphasizing why he was  
eventually successful.
 
> Bretz was awarded geology's highest honor, the Penrose Medal, in the
> last years of his life.

	He deserved it.  He persevered and documented his case to the best  
that the evidence would permit.  He met the challenge of skeptical  
scientists by going out and finding more field evidence and showing it to  
other geologists.  He incorporated the work of others, and eventually  
addressed problems in his own presentations.

>He told his son: "All my enemies are dead so I
> have no one to gloat over."

	Judging from the history of Bretz's investigations, I suspect part  
of his problem was his attitude towards his critics.  If scientific  
criticism is treated as personal criticism, and if critics are regarded as  
"enemies" that are biased by "differences in philosophy", it is harder to  
see justification for doing the only thing that really matters in science  
-- documentation of the evidence.  That is much harder than blaming the  
motivations of critics, but it is the only thing that could eventually  
convince people they are wrong, scientifically speaking, as Bretz's  
example amply demonstrates.  Also note that despite his supposedly  
"heretical" ideas, Bretz had no difficulty presenting his evidence and its  
interpretation in a profusion of papers in prestigious geological journals  
(e.g., the Journal of Geology and the Geological Society of America  
Bulletin).

	In summary, a recipe for failure in science is to start blaming  
the motivations of critics instead of addressing their scientific  
criticisms, even if you think they are "unfair".  Bretz eventually  
documented his case to the satisfaction of most scientists, and his  
interpretation was eventually accepted.  Failure of scientists to accept  
an unusual interpretation is far more likely to be due to lack of  
documentation than supposed philosophical biases.  The question is whether  
an advocate of an interpretation rises to the challenge or not.  Bretz  
did, and he deserves alot of credit for doing so.

	Bretz's hypothesis was not a titanic struggle between two  
diametrically-opposed philosophies, it was an effort to test several  
hypotheses, including Bretz's interpretation, against the evidence, over  
many years, involving many scientists, and most of that debate took place  
in the conventional scientific literature despite it supposedly being  
"heretical".  Bretz's ideas were "heretical" -- no question -- and there  
was some philosophy entangled in the debate, but the effect that had was  
small compared to the eventual effect of the evidence, and it did not stop  
legitimate scientific consideration.

	Purveyors of unusual alternative explanations, take note of Bretz.

[lengthy advertisement deleted]

--

	-Andrew
	macrae@geo.ucalgary.ca
	home page: http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae