Premium
RELATIVE MOTIONS IN GEOLOGY: SOME PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCES
Author(s) -
Pratsch J.C.
Publication year - 1990
Publication title -
journal of petroleum geology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.725
H-Index - 42
eISSN - 1747-5457
pISSN - 0141-6421
DOI - 10.1111/j.1747-5457.1990.tb00842.x
Subject(s) - geology , interpretation (philosophy) , tectonics , geologic map , scale (ratio) , paleontology , reference frame , frame (networking) , structural basin , frame of reference , earth science , epistemology , cartography , geography , computer science , philosophy , telecommunications , programming language , physics , quantum mechanics
The motion of geological bodies is always relative. Regardless of the dimensions of a sample, our interpretation and understanding of the geological processes involved will, therefore, always depend on an external reference frame, and on the degree of subjectivity involved in our interpretation. Rarely, therefore, will geological interpretations be “correct”, and at least tow alternative answers will in most cases be available. Such alternative answers are, however, often avoided. In practical petroleum geology, these limitations to geological science appear to occur only in large‐scale interpretations, such as basin formaiton, tectonic driving forces and orogenesis. In regional and global geology, the reference framework is of primary importance, and will influence the underlying and resultant geological philosophy