In a subsequent argument (2023), Stern depends on one other auxiliary assumption associated to “preservation bias.” He argues that if a given interval in Earth’s historical past is bookended by two intervals of enough preservation, then we will assume that the intervening interval additionally adequately preserved proof. Any absence of proof within the intervening interval between intervals of enough preservation is thus a real absence. Along with clear proof for the operation of plate tectonics throughout the Neoproterozoic, Stern amends his earlier place and argues that there’s additionally clear proof for plate tectonics throughout the earlier Orosirian interval (throughout the Paleoproterozoic). As a result of proof is satisfactorily preserved for the Neoproterozoic and the Orosirian, Stern assumes that proof must also be adequately preserved throughout the interim. Nevertheless, we lack proof for plate tectonics throughout the meantime. Thus, Stern concludes that the Earth has skilled a number of episodes of plate tectonics, punctuated by a “boring” interval of little tectonic exercise within the interim. Stern’s auxiliary assumption about bookended preservation will doubtless be investigated by different geoscientists in response to his attraction to absence of proof.
Maybe some readers have already got noticed a possible objection to Stern’s assumptions. You could be pondering that he’s too uniformitarian in regards to the preservation of proof. For example, many scientists have given various arguments to elucidate the shortage of preservation of rocks comparable to blueschist. Others have argued that the circumstances of the early Earth had been so completely different that plate tectonic processes didn’t kind blueschist (e.g., Palin and White 2015). Moreover, maybe a catastrophic occasion may destroy proof between two intervals of enough preservation. My fear is that with out within the first place interesting to absence of proof as proof of absence, such various explanations may by no means be pursued, leaving scientists disadvantaged of a richer understanding of their goal phenomena. For instance, on this case, scientists achieve insights into the metamorphic processes that kind blueschist by searching for to elucidate its absence. If the absence of blueschist weren’t thought-about, then such insights may stay unknown.
* * *
In my forthcoming paper, I defend what I name a Pragmatic View of arguments from absence. The fundamental concept is that appeals to absence of proof as proof of absence are warranted within the paleosciences, as a result of they provide a theoretical scaffold to analyze auxiliary hypotheses. Auxiliary hypotheses are conditionals: “If H [our initial hypothesis] is true, then proof y will likely be noticed.” To check auxiliary hypotheses, scientists should entertain an preliminary speculation over different conceivable alternate options. Entertaining absence of proof as proof of absence permits Stern to think about auxiliary assumptions associated to the preservation of proof. Others have tried to refute him by specifying a wider vary of alternate options with their very own auxiliaries, towards which Stern’s speculation could be contrasted. Treating absence of proof as proof of absence offers the preliminary cause (in some circumstances, maybe the one cause) for investigating the implications of some hypotheses that may in any other case be uncared for. If geologists strictly adhered to the Probabilistic View, then Stern may by no means have supplied his arguments, and geologists can be disadvantaged of productive traces of inquiry which have arisen from his appeals.
In the end, I don’t want to dismiss the Probabilistic View. I merely want to level out that in lots of investigations, absence of proof guides scientists by focusing their investigations on attainable alternate options and auxiliaries which could clarify the absence. If scientists didn’t deal with absence of proof as proof of absence, then there can be comparatively little warrant for these investigations. But, these investigations enable scientists to make real progress in direction of extra refined fashions for the Earth’s deep previous.
The debates that preoccupy at present’s paleogeologists are harking back to the debates that had been the main focus of the pioneers of glaciology within the late nineteenth century. In each contexts, a lot effort is devoted to explaining the absence of sure traces of hint proof. Doing so just isn’t a trivial matter: simply as plate tectonics is assumed to destroy proof because it “recycles” the Earth’s crust, some glaciologists posited that shifting glaciers may destroy proof for previous episodes of submergence as they crawled throughout the land (Bell 1891). Glaciologists understood that absence of proof is proof of absence when discovering proof is extremely anticipated. Nonetheless, even when the likelihood of discovering proof is low or unclear, I feel that appeals to absence of proof as proof of absence have a spot in paleogeological pondering. Such appeals give rise to fruitful pursuits of attainable explanations for the absence in query.*
[* Matt will present his paper on the Pragmatic View at the meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association in November. He intends to develop an expanded version of the paper as a chapter in his dissertation. Plate tectonics is a complex, global phenomenon that has operated on Earth for millions (perhaps billions) of years, and geoscientific practices that make use of the theory are ripe for philosophical analysis. Stay tuned for more work on the “philosophy of plate tectonics!” And watch out for the next post on Extinct, which will continue the discussion of negative evidence in the historical sciences.]
Bell, D. 1891. Phenomena of the Glacial Epoch: II. The ‘Nice Submergence.’ Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow 9, no. 1: 100-38. https://doi.org/10.1144/transglas.9.1.100.
Bell, D. 1897. The ‘Nice Submergence’ Once more: Clava. Geological Journal 4, no. 1: 27-30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S001675680017503X.
Hamilton, W. B. 2011. Plate tectonics started in Neoproterozoic time, and plumes from deep mantle have by no means operated. Lithos 123, nos. 1-4: 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lithos.2010.12.007.
Hopkins, M. T., Harrison, M. and Manning, E. C. 2008. Low warmth movement inferred from >4 Gyr zircons suggests Hadean plate boundary interactions. Nature 456: 493-96. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07465.
Howorth, H. H. 1894. The North Sea Ice Sheet. Nature 50, no. 1282: 79. https://doi.org/10.1038/050079a0.
Jamieson, T. F. 1874. On the Final Stage of the Glacial Interval in North Britain. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 30, nos. 1-4: 317-38. https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.JGS.1874.030.01-04.40.
Macnair, P., and Mort, F. eds. 1908. Historical past of the Geological Society of Glasgow, 1858-1908, with Biographical Notes of Outstanding Members. Glasgow: Geological Society of Glasgow.
NASA (1972). Undertaking Cyclops: a Design Research of a System for Detecting Extraterrestrial Clever Life. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19730010095.
O’Toole, G. 2019. Absence of Proof Is Not Proof of Absence” Quote Investigator. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/09/17/absence/.
Palin, R. M., and White, R. W. 2015. Emergence of blueschists on Earth linked to secular modifications in oceanic crust composition. Nature Geoscience 9: 60-64. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2605.
Palin, R. M., Santosh, M., Cao, W., Li, S., Hernández-Uribe, D. and Parsons, A. 2020. Secular change and the onset of plate tectonics on Earth. Earth-Science Critiques 207, 103172: 1-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103172.
Sagan, C. and Druyan, A. 1995. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle within the Darkish. New York: Ballantine Books.
Schroder, J. 2023. The Exceptional Reverend Henry W. Crosskey, the Erratic Blocks Committee, and the Crosskey Assortment of Glacial Erratic Specimens. Birmingham Erratic Boulders Undertaking. https://erraticsproject.org/henry_crosskey/.
Sheppard, T. 1895. On the Prevalence of Scandinavian Boulders in England. The Glacialists’ Journal 3, no. 1: 129-32. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4182734&seq=149.
Smith, J. L. B. 1939. A Dwelling Fish of Mesozoic Kind. Nature 143: 455-56. https://doi.org/10.1038/143455a0.
Sober, E. 2009. Absence of proof and proof of absence: evidential transitivity in reference to fossils, fishing, fine-tuning, and firing squads. Philosophical Research 143: 63-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-008-9315-0.
Sollas, W. J. 1895. An Experiment to Illustrate the Mode of Circulation of a Viscous Fluid. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 51: 361-68. https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.JGS.1895.051.01-04.28.
Stern, R. J. 2018. The evolution of plate tectonics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 376, no. 20170406: 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0406.
Stern, R. J. 2023. The Orosirian (1800–2050 Ma) plate tectonic episode: Key for reconstructing the Proterozoic tectonic document. Geoscience Frontiers 14, no. 3: 101553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101553.
Wallach, E. 2019. Inference from absence: the case of archaeology. Palgrave Communications 5, no. 94: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0307-9.
