This post is really rough and mostly meant to refer back to when I’ve produced more work on the subject. Proceed at your own risk.
As I mentioned a few weeks ago I am working on a project on how scientific paradigms are developed. I generated a long list of questions and picked plate tectonics as my first case study. I immediately lost interest in the original questions and wanted to make a dependency graph/tech tree for the development of the paradigm, and this is just a personal project so I did that instead.
I didn’t reach a stopping point with this graph other than “I felt done and wanted to start on my second case study”. I’m inconsistent about the level of detail or how far back I go. I tried to go back and mark whether data collection was motivated by theory or practical issues but didn’t fill it in for every node, even when it was knowable. Working on a second case study felt more useful than refining this one further so I’m shipping this version.
“Screw it I’m shipping” is kind of the theme of this blog post, but that’s partially because I’m not sure which things are most valuable. Questions, suggestions, or additions are extremely welcome as they help me narrow in on the important parts. But heads up the answer might be “I don’t remember and don’t think it’s important enough to look up”. My current intention is to circle back after 1 or 2 more case studies and do some useful compare and contrast, but maybe I’ll find something better.
And if you’re really masochistic, here’s the yEd file to play with.
Why I chose plate tectonics
- It’s recent enough to have relatively good documentation, but not so recent the major players are alive and active in field politics.
- It’s not a sexy topic, so while there isn’t much work on it what exists is pretty high quality.
- It is *the only* accepted paradigm in its field (for the implicit definition of paradigm in my head).
- Most paradigms are credited to one person on Wikipedia, even though that one person needed many other people’s work and the idea was refined by many people after they created it. Plate tectonics is the first I’ve found that didn’t do that. Continental drift is attributed to Alfred Wegener, but continental drift is not plate tectonics. Plate tectonics is acknowledged as so much of a group effort wikipedia doesn’t give anyone’s name.
- This graph is based primarily on Plate Tectonics: An Insider’s History of the Modern Theory of the Earth, edited by Naomi Oreskes. It also includes parts from this lecture by Christopher White, and Oxford’s Very Short Introduction to Plate Tectonics.
- Sources vary on how much Alfred Wegener knew when he proposed continental drift. Some say he only had the fossil and continental shape data, but the White video says he had also used synchronous geological layers and evidence of glacial travel.
- I tried to resolve this by reading Wegener’s original paper (translated into English) but it only left me more confused. He predicted cracks in plates being filled in by magma, but only mentions fossils once. Moreover he only brings them up to point to fossils of plants that are clearly maladapted to the climate of their current location, not the transcontinental weirdnesses. He does casually mention “Concerning South America and Africa, biologists and geologists are in close agreement that a Brazilian–African continent existed in the Mesozoic”, but clearly he’s not the first one to make that argument.
- I alas ran out of steam before trying Wegener’s book.
- I was stymied in attempts to check his references by the fact that they’re in German. If you really love reading historic academic German and would like to pair on this, please let me know.
- I stuck to just the fossil + fit data in the graph, because White is ambiguous when he’s talking about data Wegener had vs. data that came later.
- White says the bathymetry maps showing the continental shelves had a much better fit than the continents themselves didn’t come out until after Wegener had published, but this paper cites sufficiently detailed maps of North America’s sea floor in 1884. It’s possible no one bothered with South America and Africa until later.
- A lot of the data for plate tectonics fell out of military oceanography research. Some of the tools used for this were 100+ years old. Others were recently invented (in particular, magnetometers and gravimeters that worked at sea), but the tech those inventions relied on was not that recent. I think. It’s possible a motivated person could have gathered all the necessary evidence much earlier.
- Sources also vary a lot on what they thought was relevant. The White video uses continental shelf fit (which is much more precise than using the visible coastline) as one of the five pillars of evidence, but it didn’t come up in the overview chapter of the Oreskes book at all.
- This may be because evidence of continental drift (that is, that the continents used to be in different places, sometimes touching each other) is very different than evidence for plate tectonics (which overwhelmingly focuses on the structure of the plates and mechanism of motion).
- At points my research got very bogged down in some of the specifics of plate tectonics (in particular, why were transform faults always shown perpendicular to mountain ridges, and how there could be so many parallel to each other?). This ended up being quite time consuming because I was in that dead zone where the question was too advanced for 101 resources to answer but advanced resources assumed you already knew the answer. In the end I had to find a human tutor.
- This could clearly be infinitely detailed or go infinitely far back. I didn’t have a natural “done” condition beyond feeling bored and wanting to do something else.
- I only got two chapters into Oreskes and ⅔ through Very Short Introduction.
- I didn’t keep close track but this probably represents 20 hours of work, maybe closer to 30 with a more liberal definition of work. Plus 5-10 hours from other people.
- In calendar time it was ~7 weeks from starting the Oreskes book to scheduling this for publishing.
- You can see earlier drafts of the graph, along with some of my notes, on Twitter.
Thanks to several friends and especially Jasen Murray for their suggestions and questions, and half the people I’ve talked to in the last six weeks for tolerating this topic.
Thanks to Emily Arnold for spending an hour answering my very poorly phrased questions about transform faults.
Thanks to my Patreon patrons for supporting this work, you guys get a fractional impact share.
5 thoughts on “Dependency Tree For The Development Of Plate Tectonics”
This is really cool. I am excited that my Patreon dollars helped fund this work.
I already want to start asking questions like “what would good tools for assisting / enabling this kind of work look like?” But I think it’s probably too early for that — I expect you’d have to do some more of these before that would become very clear. (I’m also immediately wondering about the possibility of multiple people collaborating on something like this, which seems even further off, but I can dream.)
oh no I already have a lot of opinions on what I hate about the existing tools:
* I had to use yEd because it was the only one that let me actually make a tree and didn’t charge $10/month, but it’s missing a lot of usability features and is generally ugly.
* I’d be willing to pay money, even a subscription, if I did more of these but resented it too much when I was working on one graph and it took 8 weeks. For collaboration features it might be worth it.
* generally a pain to create the right size/color/shape node
* yEd’s handling of text labels sucks
* draw.io is really bad on the moving boxes front- you can technically do it but it’s so annoying
* Doesn’t center on one root node (this is killing most mind mapping software for me). This is a dependency graph, there are multiple starting points
* google-docs style comments with sources or explanations, or another convenient way to add elaborations. I’m told this is basically unreadable if you don’t already know most of the history, but there is too much text with too small a font already.
* yed only automatically does straight lines between boxes, I want beautiful lines with turns to make things more readable.
* yed can do lines with corners, but only using autosort (which has a bunch of problems) and if you move a box afterwords keeps all the lines’ fixed points which is a goddamn nightmare.
* autosorting that let me set additional constraints. E.g. It’d be really cool if I could line up everything in a given decade in the same column, but autosort couldn’t do it and doing it manually was a lot of work that contributed very little.
* more speculatively, it would be cool if boxes had properties like contributors and year, for easy tracing later.
also “I’m glad I gave you money what would make this easier” is like, the best comment I could imagine on a post.
I would love to get more people working on these eventually, they take forever and I might need a lot of them. I think right now I couldn’t give generalists good enough instructions, but subject matter experts might make up for that by sheer volume of knowing things. I’m testing this out a little with my dad (statistician) but it’s slow.
Written in 1965:
“Occasional references to the hypothesis of drift were made during the nineteenth century: of particular interest is the map by Snider about 1860 which showed South America shifted into close contact with Africa. It was not, however, till the second decade of the twentieth century that the hypothesis became the subject of detailed scientific study, chiefly due to the work of Tayler in the U.S.A., Wegener in Germany, and du Toit in South Africa.”
Good essay. It should be stable for me and others using it. Keep doing well what you’re doing; I look forward to reading more of your articles.
Comments are closed.