Search Documents

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 W M. Cameron

Geophysical studies have extended seaward in recent years, and the important discoveries which have been made have led to a better understanding of geological processes. A present source of certain minerals, the sea will eventually serve as an important source of desalinated water. The continental helves, in particular, represent a potential mineral resource. The expansion of Canadian oceanographic effort that is now underway will eventually lead to the exploitation of the wealth beneath the sea. THE subject of this symposium, which emphasizes the word "geophysics," the specialties of the speakers who are contributing and the nature of the audience at first made me believe that I, a a physical oceanographer, would be out of place. However, I shall undertake to classify myself as a geophysicist, and shall arrange my remarks on my specialty o that they might be of interest to those of you who are predominantly geologists, metallurgists or mining engineers.

Jan 1, 1963

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

By J. B. Macelwane

Geophysics differs from geology and physics in in many respects. In the first place, geophysics is a complex science embracing the fields of seismology, geomagnetism, geoelectricity, geodesy, meteorology, vol-canology, physical oceanography, physical hydrology, tectonophysics and exploration geophysics. Geology is also a complex science and so extensive in its various fields that no one can master them all, and no part of geology deals in any sense with several of these fields of geophysics. In the second place, geophysics makes use of methods and instruments that are derived primarily from the science of physics. Geology, on the other hand, has methods of its own and it draws its borrowed techniques and its instrumental equipment not only from physics but also and perhaps primarily from chemistry and biology. The difference, therefore, between the geophysicist and the geologist lies partly in the phenomena that are observed, partly in the methods and instruments with which each carries on his exploration; but partly also, and perhaps principally, in the habitual attitude of mind and in the background of specialized training with which each approaches the problems presented by this planet of ours. The geologist as such, therefore, is no geophysicist. On the other hand, the physicist is not a geophysicist either. Isolation of each problem in a closed laboratow system under complete control is fundamental to the methods of the physicist. The geophysicist must apply physical instruments and physicomathematical reasoning to the study of physical quantities in their undisturbed natural environment. What, then, is a geophysicist? In the sense that he is a trained expert in all of the geophysical sciences, I do not believe that such a person ever existed. It would be beyond the possibilities of a single lifetime. I think there is confusion in our ideas and in our use of terms. We are not all thinking of the same thing when we say geophysics or geophysicist; yet we seem to talk as though we were. It is as absurd to say that the whole of geophysics belongs to geology because the field of a particular type of geophysicist—the exploration geophysicist —calls for some knowledge of geology as it would be to say that the whole of biology belongs to geology because a particular type of biologist—the paleontologist— needs some knowledge of geology. Development of a Geophysicist Since it is impossible to become an expert in all the fields of geophysics, and since students entering college seldom know the field they will choose as a career, what would we suggest as the best general preparation for work in geophysics, whether as a meteorologist, an oceanographer, a seismologist, a geodesist, a geomagneticist, a volcanologist, a tectonophysicist, a hydro1 ogist, or an exploration geophysicistp we may distinguish five phases in the development of a geophysicist: (I) his mathematical and scientific studies in high school; (2) the general mathematical and scientific

Jan 1, 1946

By J. B. Macelwane

Geophysics differs from geology and physics in in many respects. In the first place, geophysics is a complex science embracing the fields of seismology, geomagnetism, geoelectricity, geodesy, meteorology, vol-canology, physical oceanography, physical hydrology, tectonophysics and exploration geophysics. Geology is also a complex science and so extensive in its various fields that no one can master them all, and no part of geology deals in any sense with several of these fields of geophysics. In the second place, geophysics makes use of methods and instruments that are derived primarily from the science of physics. Geology, on the other hand, has methods of its own and it draws its borrowed techniques and its instrumental equipment not only from physics but also and perhaps primarily from chemistry and biology. The difference, therefore, between the geophysicist and the geologist lies partly in the phenomena that are observed, partly in the methods and instruments with which each carries on his exploration; but partly also, and perhaps principally, in the habitual attitude of mind and in the background of specialized training with which each approaches the problems presented by this planet of ours. The geologist as such, therefore, is no geophysicist. On the other hand, the physicist is not a geophysicist either. Isolation of each problem in a closed laboratow system under complete control is fundamental to the methods of the physicist. The geophysicist must apply physical instruments and physicomathematical reasoning to the study of physical quantities in their undisturbed natural environment. What, then, is a geophysicist? In the sense that he is a trained expert in all of the geophysical sciences, I do not believe that such a person ever existed. It would be beyond the possibilities of a single lifetime. I think there is confusion in our ideas and in our use of terms. We are not all thinking of the same thing when we say geophysics or geophysicist; yet we seem to talk as though we were. It is as absurd to say that the whole of geophysics belongs to geology because the field of a particular type of geophysicist—the exploration geophysicist —calls for some knowledge of geology as it would be to say that the whole of biology belongs to geology because a particular type of biologist—the paleontologist— needs some knowledge of geology. Development of a Geophysicist Since it is impossible to become an expert in all the fields of geophysics, and since students entering college seldom know the field they will choose as a career, what would we suggest as the best general preparation for work in geophysics, whether as a meteorologist, an oceanographer, a seismologist, a geodesist, a geomagneticist, a volcanologist, a tectonophysicist, a hydro1 ogist, or an exploration geophysicistp we may distinguish five phases in the development of a geophysicist: (I) his mathematical and scientific studies in high school; (2) the general mathematical and scientific

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

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 Donald C. Branford

The place of geophysics in the curriculum of a college or an engineering school has been much discussed. There is uncertainty as to whether the graduate may be called a "geological geophysicist" or a "geophysical geologist." Some have used the term "geophysical engineer." The question of the specialized undergraduate curriculum versus a general undergraduate training in the parent sciences with the addition of cultural electives has been and is still being argued. The literature during the past Io years shows that there are two rather definite schools of thought on this subject. The prospective employer, engaged in active geophysical exploration, visualizes the graduate in terms of the routine work he will do in the field. The school administrator, grounded in many years of tradition in the cultural type of education, visualizes the graduate in terms of his position in a political and cultural society as well as in his work as a professional geophysicist. Both are right and both wrong. A third school of thought, that of the student himself, has been almost totally ignored. It would seem best, for the purpose of this paper, to treat these various points and allied material separately, and then to integrate the conclusions as a set of conditions that should be fulfilled as far as possible in the ideal curriculum. At the end the relationship of our findings to the curriculum that has been tentatively adopted at the University of Pittsburgh will be considered. Divisions in Definition or Field of Geophysics Geophysics is that field of science in which geological and earth problems are solved with the use of physical and chemical techniques. Altogether too much attention has been paid to the artificial separation in this science of the commercial applications from the so-called "pure" or academic geophysics. The only real difference in the two types of work is one of scale of operations. In the commercial field the scale is large in terms of fmancial backing, immediate economic importance, and speed of operations. In the academic field the scale is large in terms of breadth of interests, in eventual economic importance, and length of time allowable for theoretical investigations. In exploration work the scale is small in terms of dimensions, since the methods are applicable only to the outer 20,000 ft. or SO of the earth's crust. In academic work, the student is not pressed for results of immediate economic importance, and therefore can afford to spend more time on problems that seem unimportant at the time. In the sense of background knowledge of the parent sciences necessary to the geophysicist, no essential difference can be found. Physics, chemistry, geology, and mathematics together, and in their proper proportionate amounts, form the matrix from which geophysical ideas and methods may spring.

Jan 1, 1946

By Donald C. Branford

The place of geophysics in the curriculum of a college or an engineering school has been much discussed. There is uncertainty as to whether the graduate may be called a "geological geophysicist" or a "geophysical geologist." Some have used the term "geophysical engineer." The question of the specialized undergraduate curriculum versus a general undergraduate training in the parent sciences with the addition of cultural electives has been and is still being argued. The literature during the past Io years shows that there are two rather definite schools of thought on this subject. The prospective employer, engaged in active geophysical exploration, visualizes the graduate in terms of the routine work he will do in the field. The school administrator, grounded in many years of tradition in the cultural type of education, visualizes the graduate in terms of his position in a political and cultural society as well as in his work as a professional geophysicist. Both are right and both wrong. A third school of thought, that of the student himself, has been almost totally ignored. It would seem best, for the purpose of this paper, to treat these various points and allied material separately, and then to integrate the conclusions as a set of conditions that should be fulfilled as far as possible in the ideal curriculum. At the end the relationship of our findings to the curriculum that has been tentatively adopted at the University of Pittsburgh will be considered. Divisions in Definition or Field of Geophysics Geophysics is that field of science in which geological and earth problems are solved with the use of physical and chemical techniques. Altogether too much attention has been paid to the artificial separation in this science of the commercial applications from the so-called "pure" or academic geophysics. The only real difference in the two types of work is one of scale of operations. In the commercial field the scale is large in terms of fmancial backing, immediate economic importance, and speed of operations. In the academic field the scale is large in terms of breadth of interests, in eventual economic importance, and length of time allowable for theoretical investigations. In exploration work the scale is small in terms of dimensions, since the methods are applicable only to the outer 20,000 ft. or SO of the earth's crust. In academic work, the student is not pressed for results of immediate economic importance, and therefore can afford to spend more time on problems that seem unimportant at the time. In the sense of background knowledge of the parent sciences necessary to the geophysicist, no essential difference can be found. Physics, chemistry, geology, and mathematics together, and in their proper proportionate amounts, form the matrix from which geophysical ideas and methods may spring.

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

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