The Mass-Extinction Debates: How Science Works in a Crisis

by William Glen (Editor)

This book is the first to examine the arguments and behavior of the scientists who have been locked in conflict for a decade over two competing hypotheses for the cause of the mass extinction, some 65 million years ago, of most of life on earth, including the dinosaurs. These papers - by historians, sociologists, philosophers, and participating scientists - provide an exceptional opportunity to observe firsthand the workings of science that in quieter times are hidden from view. The book concludes with an overarching discussion by a balanced panel of embattled scientists and scholars.

Genres: Science

388 pages, Paperback

First published August 1, 1994

Reviews

[Ann · Rating 4 out of 5]

Glen sets out the basic history behind these debates which is followed by several chapters of the experience and reflection from several researchers involved in the debates and research. The book concludes with part of a panel discussion which summarizes the process of the debates -- both cognitive and social. Despite some of the chapters calling for in depth knowledge of certain fields or hypotheses, this book provides good history and insights. The scientists and the process of doing and sharing science become quite real and the emphasis is taken off of the popular attraction to dinosaurs and put on the more interesting and profound scientific questions. This book anticipates recent developments in science regarding the Deccan Traps and volcanism. I found the book quite helpful for understanding the connections between individual research projects and the big ideas and scientific debate. I recommend the book for those interested in mass extinctions, evolution, the process of science, and science in the media and public view.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A COLLECTION OF ESSAYS ON THE DINOSAUR EXTINCTION QUESTION, BUT ALSO BROADER ISSUES

Editor William Glen is a geologist and historian of science. He is a former Editor-at-Large at Stanford University Press, former Visiting Scientist/Historian at the U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, and is currently Visiting Scholar at Stanford University, CA.

He wrote in the Preface to this 1994 book, "This book is the first to examine the arguments and behavior of the scientists who have for so long been locked in conflict over the competing hypotheses, of mass-extinction cause. The debates---triggered in 1980 by the advent of the meteorite-impact hypothesis put forth by the Alvarez-Berkeley group---have grown into a broad interdisciplinary upheaval, one of the most dramatic in the recent history of science.

"The controversy raging about this issue has provided an exceptional opportunity to observe, firsthand, the workings of science that in quieter times are hidden from view... The extinction conflict has grown frenetically, from a single hypothesis into a concatenation of theories straddling a host of scientific disciplines, and has opened whole windows ... onto the workings of science." (Pg. vi)

One essayist observed, "The scope and speed with which interest in the impact hypothesis spread cannot be understood apart from the fact that many people already believed that the question of how the dinosaurs dies was both answerable and worth answering. Furthermore, distinct advantages flow from addressing questions widely perceived as significant." (Pg. 103)

Stephen Jay Gould states in an interview, "Punctuated equilibrium is a different-scale phenomenon---it's not just about simultaneity in extinctions and originations, which is what the issue of mass extinctions is about. It's a punctuational model for the origin of individual species. What they have in common is a general philosophical approach to change. So again, anything that looked favorable to Alvarez was happy for me, because of my philosophically favorable inclination toward punctuational change. But I don't think there's a direct relationship with punctuated equilibrium." (Pg. 255)

A geologist pointed out, "All this talk about uniformitarianism is horribly outdated. It's not modern uniformitarianism that talks about constancy of rate and catastrophes, that's Lyellian... That's been abandoned for god knows how long. People who have written about uniformitarianism have pointed this out. All this talk about overthrowing uniformitarianism is nonsense. There is no empirical observation that could be made that could overthrow what really is uniformitarianism, which is simply Occam's razor." (PG. 270)

These essays will be of keen interest to anyone studying these issues.