Search Documents

By Allen Rogers

IT has always seemed to me that there is a certain similarity between the work of the mining engineer and that of the doctor of medicine-each has very often to be governed in his actions by conditions which he cannot. see. It is not necessary to detail the unseen conditions with which the mining engineer or geologist has to deal-the further extension of orebodies; the existence of new ones, the throw of a fault, the probable change in grade or character of the ore with advance of the workings, are a few of the conditions which the mining engineer has to determine as well as he can from the deductions he is able to make from what he can observe. Just so the physician is often confronted with conditions that he can not observe. Probably less than half of human ills make a manifestation at the surface of the body from which definite and certain conclusions can be drawn. The diagnostician must observe various things and, from these observations in combination, conclude what 'his course should be to bring about the cure of the trouble. Both professions would be assisted immensely by any agency that would permit them to look below the surface, something that would make more certain the diagnosis which each is called upon to make. The physician has had such an agency since 1895, when Röntgen discovered the X-ray; which, by making possible shadowgraphs of the osseous portion of the human body, advanced immensely the diagnosis of bone lesions. Later, with improvement in the technique and more understanding in the interpretation of what the photographic plate shows, other portions of the human anatomy could be examined and at the present time there is hardly an instance of internal disorder to which the aid of the X-ray is not called. Some organs are made opaque by administering mineral substances; in, other cases, conclusions are drawn from barely perceptible shadows on the photographic plate. Generally the surgeon's knife is directed with exactitude to the seat of the trouble and so not only is the difficulty revealed but the necessity for an exploratory' operation is averted.

Jan 1, 1928

The evaluation of Abandoned Mined Lands can involve the investigation of very large areas of land. Often, the locations of critical areas or impending problems are unknown, and are not easily identified from the surface. Microseismic monitoring has been demonstrated to be effective in identifying potential instabilities and active movement in mines from distances of several kilometers. By placing sensors in proximity to, or in contact with, a high acoustic conductance layer close to the mined zone, large areas can be monitored for potential problems with a minimum of sensors and drillholes. As part of a U.S. Bureau of Mines contract, a prototype system was developed to identify and locate potential instability problems over wide areas of land. Once a problem area has been located, the system can be used to analyze the type of the problem, its size, relative degree of instability, and potential for damage. Continued monitoring after application of remedial measures can effectively determine the efficacy of those measures.

Jan 1, 1993

By David K. Fountain

"The growth of the mining industry in British Columbia in the last ten years has been largely the result of the development of large low-grade copper and molybdenum deposits. There are two problems which must be solved in the search for mineral deposits of this type. It is necessary to detect large volumes of rock containing a low percentage of total sulphide mineralization1 and, secondly, to get some idea of the economic significance of this mineralization. The standard geophysical exploration techniques available have a varying degree of application in the search for disseminated sulphide de-posits. The electrical methods, and the induced polarization method in particular, are the most successful direct methods, and magnetic methods have indirect application in most situations. This is illustrated by geo-physical survey results from several properties in British Columbia."

Jan 1, 1968

By C. A. HEILANDG

THERE is a need for men well trained in geo- physical prospecting. Although the number of geophysicists required by the industry in the future cannot be expected to be very great, there will always be a demand for courses on the subject. A number of educational institutions are, therefore, interested in providing instruction in geophysical prospecting. Some institutions will be satisfied with courses in general geophysical prospecting designed to give the geologist fundamental concepts on the comparative merits of the methods and the interpretation of the results. Other institutions will want to give special instructions in theory, field procedure, and interpretation of any or all geophysical methods. In giving such special courses a number of problems will be faced, and it seems to me that such difficulties are easier to overcome in an engineering institution than in a university. A knowledge of basic engineering subjects, such as required of all students in an engineering school, seems to be the best foundation upon

Jan 1, 1930

The papers discussed in the following pages were presented during two sessions of the Geophysics Education Committee of the Mineral Industry Education Division on Feb. 17 and 18, 1941. At the first meeting, to consider the "Influence of Geophysics upon Geology Curricula," this Committee was joined by the Geophysics and Mining Geology Committees of the A.I.M.E., the Society of Economic Geologists, representatives of the American Geophysical Union, and delegates from the Committees on College Curricula and on Applications of Geology of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Quentin D. Singewald and Sherwin F. Kelly presided. At the ensuing session, especially emphasizing the integration of geology, physics and chemistry for the solution of earth problems, the joint participants with the Geophysics Education Committee were the Geophysics Committee, and representatives of the American Geophysical Union and of the Committee on College Curricula of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Richard M. Field and W. R. Chedsey presided. In the following summary of the discussion at the two meetings, written discussion submitted subsequently is not differentiated from that offered orally at the session. A provisional report of the Geophysics Education Committee was presented at the second session, and some of the following discussion refers to it. This report has not been printed (it is anticipated that a more comprehensive, final one will be rendered at the 1942 annual meeting). A few mimeographed copies of this provisional report were made. Dr. W. P. Haynes presented some notes prepared by Dr. F. H. Lahee, Chairman of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists' Committee on College Curricula. This Com- mittee's inquiries reveal the general opinion that a four-year academic preparation is inadequate, five or six being advisable. The fundamentals, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and English composition, should be stressed in the first three years, with specialization in the last two or three years. Some companies provide an apprenticeship period, and themselves give additional training. During academic years more attention needs to be given to engineering training, to field mapping, and in geology to stratigraphy and sedimentation. The amount of mere memory work should be cut, and men trained to observe and reason. Dr. Lahee emphasized the need of more adequate preparation in English composition, because of the inability of many graduates to compose acceptable reports. Sherwin F. Kelly pointed out that much time in university training, which ought to be devoted to technical subjects, was taken .up with English courses. He emphasized that it is the part of the universities to demand of the high schools that the students they send to the university be properly trained to speak and write English. Prof. W. T. Thom protested against the crowding of high-school material into already overcrowded college curricula. C. E. Dobbin, chairman of the Committee on Applications of Geology of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, described briefly the work of his committee in publicizing geology, and said that it found a widespread popular interest in the subject but a lack of appreciation of its importance. He recommended that attempts to coordinate the works of geologists and geophysicists be expanded somewhat toward the further developing and encouraging of a "species of geopolitician" capable of assisting the progress of geology and geophysics by more vigorous advertising of

Jan 1, 1946

The papers discussed in the following pages were presented during two sessions of the Geophysics Education Committee of the Mineral Industry Education Division on Feb. 17 and 18, 1941. At the first meeting, to consider the "Influence of Geophysics upon Geology Curricula," this Committee was joined by the Geophysics and Mining Geology Committees of the A.I.M.E., the Society of Economic Geologists, representatives of the American Geophysical Union, and delegates from the Committees on College Curricula and on Applications of Geology of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Quentin D. Singewald and Sherwin F. Kelly presided. At the ensuing session, especially emphasizing the integration of geology, physics and chemistry for the solution of earth problems, the joint participants with the Geophysics Education Committee were the Geophysics Committee, and representatives of the American Geophysical Union and of the Committee on College Curricula of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Richard M. Field and W. R. Chedsey presided. In the following summary of the discussion at the two meetings, written discussion submitted subsequently is not differentiated from that offered orally at the session. A provisional report of the Geophysics Education Committee was presented at the second session, and some of the following discussion refers to it. This report has not been printed (it is anticipated that a more comprehensive, final one will be rendered at the 1942 annual meeting). A few mimeographed copies of this provisional report were made. Dr. W. P. Haynes presented some notes prepared by Dr. F. H. Lahee, Chairman of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists' Committee on College Curricula. This Com- mittee's inquiries reveal the general opinion that a four-year academic preparation is inadequate, five or six being advisable. The fundamentals, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and English composition, should be stressed in the first three years, with specialization in the last two or three years. Some companies provide an apprenticeship period, and themselves give additional training. During academic years more attention needs to be given to engineering training, to field mapping, and in geology to stratigraphy and sedimentation. The amount of mere memory work should be cut, and men trained to observe and reason. Dr. Lahee emphasized the need of more adequate preparation in English composition, because of the inability of many graduates to compose acceptable reports. Sherwin F. Kelly pointed out that much time in university training, which ought to be devoted to technical subjects, was taken .up with English courses. He emphasized that it is the part of the universities to demand of the high schools that the students they send to the university be properly trained to speak and write English. Prof. W. T. Thom protested against the crowding of high-school material into already overcrowded college curricula. C. E. Dobbin, chairman of the Committee on Applications of Geology of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, described briefly the work of his committee in publicizing geology, and said that it found a widespread popular interest in the subject but a lack of appreciation of its importance. He recommended that attempts to coordinate the works of geologists and geophysicists be expanded somewhat toward the further developing and encouraging of a "species of geopolitician" capable of assisting the progress of geology and geophysics by more vigorous advertising of

Jan 1, 1946

By W. C. Krumbein

Geological problems are approached from a geometrical (space relations) viewpoint, a kinematical (time sequence) viewpoint, or a dynamical viewpoint. The first two require sound training in conventional geology and in field methods. The third approach requires a solid foundation of chemistry, physics, and mathematics. Modern training for geologists should include close integrltion of basic sciences with geological principles. Introduction Our knowledge of the earth has increased tremendously during the last half century. We know more about its surface configuration, the distribution of its natural resources, the proccssion of living forms that inhabited it in the past, the chemical composition of its oceans, the areal distribution of its surface rocks, the movements of its atmosphere, and so on. Not only do we know more facts about the earth, but we have a better understanding of the processes that take place on and within it, such as the nature of earthquakes, the thermodynamics of the atmosphere, the chemical equilibria involved in the formation of igneous rocks, the mechanics of stream flow, the dynamics of the earth's origin, and so on. Many sciences contributed to the sum total of this knowledge, including such established disciplines as geology, geography, physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology. Out of this accumulation of new knowledge grew also a group of new sciences, such as seismology, oceanography, meteorology, volcanology, hydrology. Collectively these latter are known as the geophysical and geochemical sciences, and to a large extent they began as branches of geology. Until the turn of the century, for example, the study of earthquakes (seismology) was a part of geology, although as early as 1846 Mallet, a physicist, had suggested that the subject could be investigated by elastic-wave theory. Comparatively little progress was made along these lines until the seismograph was developed near the turn of the century; since then, additional earthquake data have accurnul~ted rapidly, but more important, the interpretation of these data essentially has kept pace with their accumulation. In similar fashion, meteorology was generally considered a branch of geology as recently as one or two decades ago. Considerable progress had been made in such aspects as weather forecasting, but the science dates its recent rapid rise from the year 1911, when Bjerknes first applied the principles of dynamics to the analysis of air masses. The rapid development of such disciplines as oceanography, volcanology and hydrology was due in part to the application of principles of chemical equilibrium, of dynamics, and of thermodynamics to earth problems, by men who were essentially physicists or chemists by training. The last half century, therefore, and particularly the last two decades, saw the influx of numerous chemists and physicists into the realm of the earth sciences. In the meantime the main body of geology itself showed a marked growth, and

Jan 1, 1946

By W. C. Krumbein

Geological problems are approached from a geometrical (space relations) viewpoint, a kinematical (time sequence) viewpoint, or a dynamical viewpoint. The first two require sound training in conventional geology and in field methods. The third approach requires a solid foundation of chemistry, physics, and mathematics. Modern training for geologists should include close integrltion of basic sciences with geological principles. Introduction Our knowledge of the earth has increased tremendously during the last half century. We know more about its surface configuration, the distribution of its natural resources, the proccssion of living forms that inhabited it in the past, the chemical composition of its oceans, the areal distribution of its surface rocks, the movements of its atmosphere, and so on. Not only do we know more facts about the earth, but we have a better understanding of the processes that take place on and within it, such as the nature of earthquakes, the thermodynamics of the atmosphere, the chemical equilibria involved in the formation of igneous rocks, the mechanics of stream flow, the dynamics of the earth's origin, and so on. Many sciences contributed to the sum total of this knowledge, including such established disciplines as geology, geography, physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology. Out of this accumulation of new knowledge grew also a group of new sciences, such as seismology, oceanography, meteorology, volcanology, hydrology. Collectively these latter are known as the geophysical and geochemical sciences, and to a large extent they began as branches of geology. Until the turn of the century, for example, the study of earthquakes (seismology) was a part of geology, although as early as 1846 Mallet, a physicist, had suggested that the subject could be investigated by elastic-wave theory. Comparatively little progress was made along these lines until the seismograph was developed near the turn of the century; since then, additional earthquake data have accurnul~ted rapidly, but more important, the interpretation of these data essentially has kept pace with their accumulation. In similar fashion, meteorology was generally considered a branch of geology as recently as one or two decades ago. Considerable progress had been made in such aspects as weather forecasting, but the science dates its recent rapid rise from the year 1911, when Bjerknes first applied the principles of dynamics to the analysis of air masses. The rapid development of such disciplines as oceanography, volcanology and hydrology was due in part to the application of principles of chemical equilibrium, of dynamics, and of thermodynamics to earth problems, by men who were essentially physicists or chemists by training. The last half century, therefore, and particularly the last two decades, saw the influx of numerous chemists and physicists into the realm of the earth sciences. In the meantime the main body of geology itself showed a marked growth, and

Jan 1, 1946

The papers that appear on pages 326 through 367 were presented at two joint meetings of the Mineral Industry Education Division, Geophysics Committee, the American Geophysical Union and the Committee on College Curricula of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, at the A.I.M.E. meeting in New York on Feb. 17 and 18, 1941. At the first meeting, the Mining Geology Committee, the Society of Economic Geologists and the Committee on Applications of Geology of the ilmerican Association of Petroleum Geologists also took part.

Jan 1, 1946

The papers that appear on pages 326 through 367 were presented at two joint meetings of the Mineral Industry Education Division, Geophysics Committee, the American Geophysical Union and the Committee on College Curricula of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, at the A.I.M.E. meeting in New York on Feb. 17 and 18, 1941. At the first meeting, the Mining Geology Committee, the Society of Economic Geologists and the Committee on Applications of Geology of the ilmerican Association of Petroleum Geologists also took part.

Jan 1, 1946

For four years your Committee has been engaged in the study of problems connected with the educational preparation of professional geophysicists. The Present report represents the conclusions drawn from the investigations and deliberations undertaken since it was first organized. These studies have shown that the evolution of geophysics has proceeded along lines that differed from those marking the advance of classical geology. The latter science developed as a descriptive one, dealing with directly observable terrestrial phenomena, and the elementary, rational explanations that could be offered therefor. The fact that these phenomena were also chemical and physical in nature was seldom given more than passing acknowledgment. During the last half century, however, a new approach to problems of terrestrial phenomena has become of greater significance. This new attack has come through the sciences of physics and chemistry, as the people trained therein have investigated the facts of the earth as problems in their respective sciences. This development has been chiefly at the hands of European investigators, and European universities have long recognized it by establishing departments or institutions of geophysics. In the universities of North America, their arbitrary departmentalization into fields of physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, etc., has prevented the academic recognition of such domains of science as geophysics and geochemistry. In consequence, the development of these subjects in the United States has been largely at the hands of nonacademic institutions, while the universities themselves are evidently in a state of confusion as to how the subject should be handled. In some places an attempt to teach geophysics is made in the physics department, in others in the geology department, in some in the engineering school, and occasionally as a cooperative effort; a Department of Geophysics is seldom found in North America. In some instances, proper academic plan. ning has been precluded by interdepart. mental jealousies, or by lack of appreciation of the significance of the subject. For the background upon which these conclusions are based, the reader is referred to reports previously issued or SPonsored by Your Committee. The "First Report of the A.I.M.E. Mineral Industry Education Division's Committee of Geophysics Education, 1939," summarizes the replies received to question-

Jan 1, 1946

For four years your Committee has been engaged in the study of problems connected with the educational preparation of professional geophysicists. The Present report represents the conclusions drawn from the investigations and deliberations undertaken since it was first organized. These studies have shown that the evolution of geophysics has proceeded along lines that differed from those marking the advance of classical geology. The latter science developed as a descriptive one, dealing with directly observable terrestrial phenomena, and the elementary, rational explanations that could be offered therefor. The fact that these phenomena were also chemical and physical in nature was seldom given more than passing acknowledgment. During the last half century, however, a new approach to problems of terrestrial phenomena has become of greater significance. This new attack has come through the sciences of physics and chemistry, as the people trained therein have investigated the facts of the earth as problems in their respective sciences. This development has been chiefly at the hands of European investigators, and European universities have long recognized it by establishing departments or institutions of geophysics. In the universities of North America, their arbitrary departmentalization into fields of physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, etc., has prevented the academic recognition of such domains of science as geophysics and geochemistry. In consequence, the development of these subjects in the United States has been largely at the hands of nonacademic institutions, while the universities themselves are evidently in a state of confusion as to how the subject should be handled. In some places an attempt to teach geophysics is made in the physics department, in others in the geology department, in some in the engineering school, and occasionally as a cooperative effort; a Department of Geophysics is seldom found in North America. In some instances, proper academic plan. ning has been precluded by interdepart. mental jealousies, or by lack of appreciation of the significance of the subject. For the background upon which these conclusions are based, the reader is referred to reports previously issued or SPonsored by Your Committee. The "First Report of the A.I.M.E. Mineral Industry Education Division's Committee of Geophysics Education, 1939," summarizes the replies received to question-

Jan 1, 1946

By M. M. Slotnick

It was once aptly said that a sign of approaching senility is ceasing work on a subject and beginning to talk about it. Perhaps that explains why, after many Years in which Part of my duties has been the training of college men in various branches of petroleum exploration geophysics, I have now begun to talk about it. In making an outline of what I believe ought to be discussed under the general heading of the title, I found it almost impossible to subdivide the ideas into an ordered set of discrete subjects. Rather, the pertinent remarks seemed to interlock almost everywhere. The consequence is that it will be necessary to start with the conclusions and then try to justify them by jumping back and forth. However, based on the types of men with whom I have had to deal, the subject naturally divides itself into two parts. In the first part, I should like to deal with the case of those undergraduates whose natural bent is toward the physical sciences and who may decide to enter the geophysical fold as a career. The other part will deal with those many men, geologists and engineers for the most part, who have drifted into exploration geophysics by one means or another, and whom it is necessary to train for geophysical work while they are occupied in their routine jobs. Here it may be in point to remark that most men in exploration geophysics at Present have been developed from precisely the latter group, and that the problem of training here is of great importance even though, in this paper, it will perforce occupy the secondary place. Training oF a Geophysicist The outstanding reason for the perplexing problem on the training of a geophysi-cist is that ideas differ on the answer to the question: "what is a geophysicistp" ln any of the scientific "specialties," like physics, for example, it is relatively simple to pigeonhole a man as being qualified to call himself a physicist. That appellation applied to an individual does not mean that he has mastered only the branches of intellectual endeavor usually associated under the broad name of "physics." we expect him also to have a more than mere acquaintance with mathematics and chemist~ and some understanding of most of the other sciences. But note this important point—we expect our physicist, whom we have chosen as an example, to be intelligently trained so that, if necessary, he can and will know how and where he can get the proper information on a subject in which he is not a specialist; he will know how to absorb that information and turn it to his uses. It seems to me that this is the outstanding characteristic of a man who can truly call himself a scientist: that he is a specialist in one of the broad branches of science in that he has enough training and discipline in the scientific approach so that, when called upon to do so, he can inteugently absorb knowledge from another bordering science (and all sciences not only border upon one another to some extent, but more often, overlap One another), and

Jan 1, 1946

By M. M. Slotnick

It was once aptly said that a sign of approaching senility is ceasing work on a subject and beginning to talk about it. Perhaps that explains why, after many Years in which Part of my duties has been the training of college men in various branches of petroleum exploration geophysics, I have now begun to talk about it. In making an outline of what I believe ought to be discussed under the general heading of the title, I found it almost impossible to subdivide the ideas into an ordered set of discrete subjects. Rather, the pertinent remarks seemed to interlock almost everywhere. The consequence is that it will be necessary to start with the conclusions and then try to justify them by jumping back and forth. However, based on the types of men with whom I have had to deal, the subject naturally divides itself into two parts. In the first part, I should like to deal with the case of those undergraduates whose natural bent is toward the physical sciences and who may decide to enter the geophysical fold as a career. The other part will deal with those many men, geologists and engineers for the most part, who have drifted into exploration geophysics by one means or another, and whom it is necessary to train for geophysical work while they are occupied in their routine jobs. Here it may be in point to remark that most men in exploration geophysics at Present have been developed from precisely the latter group, and that the problem of training here is of great importance even though, in this paper, it will perforce occupy the secondary place. Training oF a Geophysicist The outstanding reason for the perplexing problem on the training of a geophysi-cist is that ideas differ on the answer to the question: "what is a geophysicistp" ln any of the scientific "specialties," like physics, for example, it is relatively simple to pigeonhole a man as being qualified to call himself a physicist. That appellation applied to an individual does not mean that he has mastered only the branches of intellectual endeavor usually associated under the broad name of "physics." we expect him also to have a more than mere acquaintance with mathematics and chemist~ and some understanding of most of the other sciences. But note this important point—we expect our physicist, whom we have chosen as an example, to be intelligently trained so that, if necessary, he can and will know how and where he can get the proper information on a subject in which he is not a specialist; he will know how to absorb that information and turn it to his uses. It seems to me that this is the outstanding characteristic of a man who can truly call himself a scientist: that he is a specialist in one of the broad branches of science in that he has enough training and discipline in the scientific approach so that, when called upon to do so, he can inteugently absorb knowledge from another bordering science (and all sciences not only border upon one another to some extent, but more often, overlap One another), and

Jan 1, 1946

By Walter H. Bucher

This symposium is designed to lay the basis for a general discussion of the place of geophysics in the training of geologists. As there is danger that in the ensuing debate individual interests may be given emphasis out of proportion to their place, we shall do well to view the whole field of geological inquiry in order to see the problem in true perspective. The Nature of Geological Inquiry "Basic" and "Complex" Sciences It is convenient to divide all science into two major divisions, the basic and the complex sciences. The basic sciences separate out from reality such entities as "substances" and "movements," describe their behavior in terms of arbitrary units of measurement and derive from them by progressive abstractions concepts and patterns of behavior that exist between them, so-called general "laws" and "properties" of nature. The complex sciences, on the other hand, deal, with little or no abstraction, with those objects of reality that are accessible to man in the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the lithosphere and the biosphere. Their work comprises two types of inquiry. One is concerned with abstractions to the extent of dealing with types rather than individuals—that is, with such things as plants, animals, protoplasm; clouds, streams, gla- ciers; volcanoes and mountain ranges. It comprises the search for general properties and patterns of behavior or "laws" that characterize the objects and their reactions to each other. These properties and laws apply always, everywhere. They are independent of the stream of time. We may call the results of this sort of inquiry timeless knowledge. The other type of inquiry is concerned with the objects themselves—that is, with this animal and that plant; this river system and that mountain chain; this glacier and that valley. Like all concrete objects in nature, they are subject to change with the passage of time, especially when it is measured in years, centuries, eons. The characteristics by which we recognize them —indeed, their very existence—are dependent on their position at this point in the stream of time. This we may call time-bound kntowledge. The so-called descriptive sciences are all bound to the past of which the objects of their study are the product and through which alone their present properties call be understood. They are historical sciences. This obvious fact is easily overlooked, which leads to serious misunderstanding, as we shall see later. Dynamic Geology With this broad picture in mind, let us now examine the nature of geological inquiry, defining, for the purposes of this discussion, geology as the science of rocks. Air is not a rock; water is. Meteorology and climatology are, correspondingly, gen-

Jan 1, 1946

By Walter H. Bucher

This symposium is designed to lay the basis for a general discussion of the place of geophysics in the training of geologists. As there is danger that in the ensuing debate individual interests may be given emphasis out of proportion to their place, we shall do well to view the whole field of geological inquiry in order to see the problem in true perspective. The Nature of Geological Inquiry "Basic" and "Complex" Sciences It is convenient to divide all science into two major divisions, the basic and the complex sciences. The basic sciences separate out from reality such entities as "substances" and "movements," describe their behavior in terms of arbitrary units of measurement and derive from them by progressive abstractions concepts and patterns of behavior that exist between them, so-called general "laws" and "properties" of nature. The complex sciences, on the other hand, deal, with little or no abstraction, with those objects of reality that are accessible to man in the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the lithosphere and the biosphere. Their work comprises two types of inquiry. One is concerned with abstractions to the extent of dealing with types rather than individuals—that is, with such things as plants, animals, protoplasm; clouds, streams, gla- ciers; volcanoes and mountain ranges. It comprises the search for general properties and patterns of behavior or "laws" that characterize the objects and their reactions to each other. These properties and laws apply always, everywhere. They are independent of the stream of time. We may call the results of this sort of inquiry timeless knowledge. The other type of inquiry is concerned with the objects themselves—that is, with this animal and that plant; this river system and that mountain chain; this glacier and that valley. Like all concrete objects in nature, they are subject to change with the passage of time, especially when it is measured in years, centuries, eons. The characteristics by which we recognize them —indeed, their very existence—are dependent on their position at this point in the stream of time. This we may call time-bound kntowledge. The so-called descriptive sciences are all bound to the past of which the objects of their study are the product and through which alone their present properties call be understood. They are historical sciences. This obvious fact is easily overlooked, which leads to serious misunderstanding, as we shall see later. Dynamic Geology With this broad picture in mind, let us now examine the nature of geological inquiry, defining, for the purposes of this discussion, geology as the science of rocks. Air is not a rock; water is. Meteorology and climatology are, correspondingly, gen-

Jan 1, 1946

By Benjamin L. Miller

The essential differences expressed by the different speakers participating in this symposium concern merely the relative emphasis placed on the subjects that are commonly included under the term "geophysics" and the branches of science that form the basis for investigations in this field. In order to appreciate the present situation it may be profitable to briefly refer to a few historical matters. One can find almost countless descriptions of geological phenomena long antedating the introduction of the title of "geology," which has been credited to Richard de Bury in the fourteenth century. Interpretations, when they were offered, were generally pure speculation. Only toward the close of the eighteenth century do we find theories developed as the result of observations and tested by additional observations. It is difficult to select and give proper credit to the individual who was particularly responsible for turning geology into a distinctly observational science. william Smith, who has been called the "Father of English Geology," certainly represents the period when observation was the only method used. As he traveled through the British Isles, "sometimes 10,000 miles in a year," he was continually making notes of his observations. Geikie says: "His plain, solid, matter of fact intellect never branched into theory or speculation, but occupied itself wholly in the observation of facts." William Smith, with others of his time, definitely laid firmly the foundations on which modern geology has been built. Field and laboratory observations can no longer be said to constitute the sole basis for geologic contributions but we have not laid aside the methods of Smith and his followers. It is folly to underestimate the fundamental value of the observational part of geology in the present. The objection to purely observational geology is that it is mainly qualitative and not quantitative, general and not specific. No one can deny this charge and probably there are few who do not welcome every method or process whereby we can put aside generalities for definite established values. Physics is the science that has particularly come to the aid of the geologist in this respect. Contributions of PhYsics It is not the intent of the writer to enumerate or to evaluate all of the contributions to geologic advance in the field of. physics. A few only are used for the purpose of illustration, When Clarence King, Director of the United States Geological Exploration of the Fortieth Parallel, invited Ferdinand Zirkel to study 2500 thin sections of rocks collected from the western United States, the use of the microscope came into general use. Zirkel's report was published in 1876. He was not the first to use transmitted light for microscopic rock determination, some work having been done by Henry Clifton Sorby and others some years earlier, but he was the first to put into general use this method. We may well daim that this

Jan 1, 1946

By Benjamin L. Miller

The essential differences expressed by the different speakers participating in this symposium concern merely the relative emphasis placed on the subjects that are commonly included under the term "geophysics" and the branches of science that form the basis for investigations in this field. In order to appreciate the present situation it may be profitable to briefly refer to a few historical matters. One can find almost countless descriptions of geological phenomena long antedating the introduction of the title of "geology," which has been credited to Richard de Bury in the fourteenth century. Interpretations, when they were offered, were generally pure speculation. Only toward the close of the eighteenth century do we find theories developed as the result of observations and tested by additional observations. It is difficult to select and give proper credit to the individual who was particularly responsible for turning geology into a distinctly observational science. william Smith, who has been called the "Father of English Geology," certainly represents the period when observation was the only method used. As he traveled through the British Isles, "sometimes 10,000 miles in a year," he was continually making notes of his observations. Geikie says: "His plain, solid, matter of fact intellect never branched into theory or speculation, but occupied itself wholly in the observation of facts." William Smith, with others of his time, definitely laid firmly the foundations on which modern geology has been built. Field and laboratory observations can no longer be said to constitute the sole basis for geologic contributions but we have not laid aside the methods of Smith and his followers. It is folly to underestimate the fundamental value of the observational part of geology in the present. The objection to purely observational geology is that it is mainly qualitative and not quantitative, general and not specific. No one can deny this charge and probably there are few who do not welcome every method or process whereby we can put aside generalities for definite established values. Physics is the science that has particularly come to the aid of the geologist in this respect. Contributions of PhYsics It is not the intent of the writer to enumerate or to evaluate all of the contributions to geologic advance in the field of. physics. A few only are used for the purpose of illustration, When Clarence King, Director of the United States Geological Exploration of the Fortieth Parallel, invited Ferdinand Zirkel to study 2500 thin sections of rocks collected from the western United States, the use of the microscope came into general use. Zirkel's report was published in 1876. He was not the first to use transmitted light for microscopic rock determination, some work having been done by Henry Clifton Sorby and others some years earlier, but he was the first to put into general use this method. We may well daim that this

Jan 1, 1946

The Geophysics Education Committee has devoted several years to a consideration of the problem of training geophysi-cists. Past reports have dealt largely with fact finding and with the discussion of particular aspects of geophysical education. In the present report it is proposed to review the subject more comprehensively. This involves the question of what educational qualifications the geophysicist of the highest professional standards should possess, and the related question of what changes must be effected in existing educational institutions in order that prospective professional geophysicists may obtain instruction of the desired quality. The type of geophysicist here contemplated is one familiar with what is known already in the several branches of earth physics, and capable not only of following contemporary progress in any of these branches, but of contributing to that progress in a research capacity. Geophysics in its broadest sense, as has been emphasized repeatedly by this Committee, is the study of the physics of the earth and of terrestrial processes. This includes both the static and the dynamic characteristics of the gaseous, the liquid, and the solid portions of the earth, as well as its gravitational, thermal, and magnetic and electrical manifestations. Some branches of earth physics have been cultivated but slightly; others have reached an advanced state of development. Those branches whose development is sufficient to warrant explicit recognition in the form of organized Sections of the American Geophysical Union are: geodesy, seismology, tectonophysics, and volcanology, dealing with the rock constituents of the earth; oceanography and hydrology with the aqueous constituents; meteorology with the atmospheric constituents; and terrestrial electricity and magnetism with the electromagnetic manifestations. At present, instruction on the professional level in any of these branches of earth physics can be obtained in but few universities in North America. In most institutions where such instruction is undertaken different subjects are given in different and independent departments. Geodesy and hydrology are taught, if at all, as a part of civil engineering. The nearest approach to volcanology and tectonophysics ordinarily is represented by petrology and structural geology given

Jan 1, 1946

The Geophysics Education Committee has devoted several years to a consideration of the problem of training geophysi-cists. Past reports have dealt largely with fact finding and with the discussion of particular aspects of geophysical education. In the present report it is proposed to review the subject more comprehensively. This involves the question of what educational qualifications the geophysicist of the highest professional standards should possess, and the related question of what changes must be effected in existing educational institutions in order that prospective professional geophysicists may obtain instruction of the desired quality. The type of geophysicist here contemplated is one familiar with what is known already in the several branches of earth physics, and capable not only of following contemporary progress in any of these branches, but of contributing to that progress in a research capacity. Geophysics in its broadest sense, as has been emphasized repeatedly by this Committee, is the study of the physics of the earth and of terrestrial processes. This includes both the static and the dynamic characteristics of the gaseous, the liquid, and the solid portions of the earth, as well as its gravitational, thermal, and magnetic and electrical manifestations. Some branches of earth physics have been cultivated but slightly; others have reached an advanced state of development. Those branches whose development is sufficient to warrant explicit recognition in the form of organized Sections of the American Geophysical Union are: geodesy, seismology, tectonophysics, and volcanology, dealing with the rock constituents of the earth; oceanography and hydrology with the aqueous constituents; meteorology with the atmospheric constituents; and terrestrial electricity and magnetism with the electromagnetic manifestations. At present, instruction on the professional level in any of these branches of earth physics can be obtained in but few universities in North America. In most institutions where such instruction is undertaken different subjects are given in different and independent departments. Geodesy and hydrology are taught, if at all, as a part of civil engineering. The nearest approach to volcanology and tectonophysics ordinarily is represented by petrology and structural geology given

Jan 1, 1946