Catastrophism and uniformitarianism: logical roots and current relevance in geology

Abstract

Abstract, Catastrophism in the Earth sciences is rooted in the view that Earth signifies its causative processes via landforms, structures and rock. Processes of types, rates and magnitudes not presently in evidence may well be signified this way. Uniformitarianism, in contrast, is a regulative stipulation motivated by the presumed necessity that science achieves logical validity in what can be said (hypothesized) about the Earth. Regulative principles, including simplicity, actualism and gradualism, are imposed a priori to insure valid inductive reasoning. This distinction lies at the heart of the catastrophist versus uniformitarian debates in the early nineteenth century and it continues to influence portions of the current scientific program. Uniformitarianism, as introduced by Charles Lyell in 1830, is specifically tied to an early nineteenth century view of inductive inference. Catastrophism involves a completely different form of inference in which hypotheses are generated retroductively. This latter form of logical inference remains relevant to modern science, while the outmoded notions of induction that warranted the doctrine of uniformitarianism were long ago shown to be overly restrictive in scientific practice. The latter should be relegated solely to historical interest in the progress of ideas.

Geoscience meets the four horsemen?

“…Whilst uncertainty can undermine scientific authority in socio-political spheres, neocatastrophism is unique in that it has exploited the 'uncertainty' of risks and hazards to harness significant research funding (Mellor, 2010). We suggest that much of catastrophism's newfound popularity reflects not only the rigidities of the classic uniformitarian model (Baker, 1998), but also socio-political anxieties in the face of global change. The reporting of catastrophes is undoubtedly increasing in reply to a plethora of social, economic, political and cultural drivers and to address these acute societal concerns, the geoscience community is adapting and responding accordingly.…”

“…Unlike the inductive bastions of uniformitarianism (e.g. gradualism, actualism), catastrophism is underpinned by a system of logical inference, where hypotheses regarding events in the earth's history are formulated retroductively (Baker, 1998). The theory strongly shaped the nascent field of geology during the 1600-1800s, when pioneering European savants such as Cuvier pieced together mounting observational evidence for catastrophic events in the rock record (Rudwick, 2007(Rudwick, , 2008.…”

“…Over recent decades, and in an effort to redress some of the straitjacket limitations of the classic uniformitarian model (Baker, 1998), neocatastrophism has been coined to describe a new integrated view that gradual changes in the earth's history have been punctuated by catastrophic events. Present emphasis on hazard mitigation means it is arguably one of the most important geoscience interpretative paradigms to influence the public and political spheres.…”

Global planetary change and catastrophic earth-surface evolution: implications for modern geomorphological research

“…On the conceptual side, progress was long hindered by adherence to a totally flawed conception of the role of uniformitarianism in scientific inquiry (Baker, 1998). The prolonged debate over the origin of the Channeled Scabland as a result of megaflooding illustrates the importance of this issue for much of the last century (Baker, 2008b).…”

Paleoflood hydrology: Origin, progress, prospects

“…Of course, the geological investigations of ancient floods can be traced back to the very origins of the discipline. Prior to Charles Lyell's somewhat misguided advocacy of uniformitarianism in the middle 1800s (Baker, 1998b), it was common for genetic hypothesizing in natural philosophy to invoke cataclysmic flooding as a mechanism to explain such features as erratic boulders, widespread mantles of boulder clay (so-called "diluvium"), and wind-and water gaps through the ridges of fold mountain ranges (Huggett, 1989). For example, Hitchcock (1835) explained the sediments and landforms of the Connecticut River valley as products of the Noachian deluge.…”