Dear Dr. Schaffer,

I have been working since 44 years in ART in geosciences (Application-Research-Training) my majors are geology, mineralogy and geomorphology my minors refer to the entire inorganic part of geosciences. As a retiree again I do a lot of work in geomorphology (see my list of publications), sedimentology and mineralogy. My geomorphological work was always closely related to the above geosciences so that measuring in the field and gathering numerical data from maps and satellite/aerial images was not anything out of the ordinary for me. I know that during the early days of geomorphology there was a lot of doctrine and a strong dependence on whose teacher´s follower you are. I was taught by Professor Büdel at Würzburg University and others believed in the doctrine of Professor Louis from München University. Believe is in God, but none of them came close to the Lord, so I did it my way:

“There is no geology without field geology”.

Glückauf H.G.Dill

.

Both of you are inspiring to me. Forty-nine years ago, I was a forester, but hired by Carl Settergren to help with hydrology research work at University of Missouri, and went on to study hydrology, and career in forest hydrology. My one course in physical geology was insufficient to inform me. This is not to say that I was observant and collected data, learned to recognize erosion and unstable slopes, etc. I suppose I might have more officially qualified as a geomorphologist about 30 years ago when I started taking the courses taught by David Rosgen, and his associates including Luna Leopold and others. I would have to thank them for opening my eyes to increased seeing and understanding the complexity of channel morphology, erosion, sedimentation and methods to better quantify channel morphology and stream -river continuum as affected by topography, landform and geology. I too thank a God for having the opportunity to better understand the beauty and complexity. Perhaps the early times, understanding geomorphology seemed more art than science, obvious to only a few with special gifts of observation and analysis, but I think from my training from Rosgen, field work and utility of analyzing LiDAR, our ability to see and measure more detail at field and landscape scales suggests to me anyway, geomorphology has become a science.

About 15 Years; About 10 of this terrain in part of a renowned Volcanic Province (Western Deccan Volcanic Province). Not restricted to pure Geomorphology. However, select measurements as under discussion were definitely inclined to hill and escarpment area morphology, facet measurements and observations related to various thematic parameters that were very much helpful in understanding slope processes, mass wasting, slope deformations in the form of subsidence, ground cracks, bulging, etc. both in W-DVP and parts of NW Indian Himalayas. I was fortunate to have my Superiors who have not only developed a keen insight in the concerned domains but also imbibed inspiration to their Students and of course to their Junior Workers. Geomorphology is a very vast domain and that one understands in field and when one try to have a dialogue with the landscapes in front of him while in field. The more You learn, the more you feel little in comparison to the processes that have carved out the Earth in its present form which we see in day to day life. There is no limit to understand the processes and so is the case with the dialogue one can have with them......

Days, months and years spent in the desert, like an ascetic stylite, may be good for the soul, but is of questionable value to Science. Earth science must address all the Processes that produced evidence seen in outcrops spread intermittently across the globe. This requires an understanding of amphibolite, basalt, granulite, migmatite, phyllite and sedimentary rocks and the structural processes associated with each.

Most of those structural processes were caused by plate tectonic adjustments and by isostasy, which caused sinking in sedimentary basins and associated uplift as horsts or ranges at basin margins, —where erosion perpetuated the sedimentary cycle.

Based on a reasonable familiarity with all the factors listed above, geomorphologists can start to make a useful contribution to Science by identifying topographic features caused by uplift and sinking that has occurred since the most recent major unconformity established an extensive peneplain.

It may help to remember that eustatic sea level has remained stable for at least several millions of years and that the effects of thick ice sheets in the northern hemisphere has been vastly exaggerated by most geomorphologists since the days of Agassiz; — a belief system indeed, but not respectable Science.

I have 25 years of field experience studying the rocks and fossils of northwestern Nebraska. From 1988-1991, I collected fossils from northern Sioux County for my dissertation work. From 1991-1996, I led field parties from the University of Nebraska State Museum while mapping the fossils and geology of the Oglala National Grassland in Sioux and Dawes Counties. From 1996-2006, I led a teams of geologists from the Nebraska Geological Survey that mapped in detail the surficial geology of most of northwestern Nebraska (a total of 80 1:24,000 quadrangles). This mapping included the entire Pine Ridge area and the area between Crawford, Nebraska and Pine Ridge, South Dakota. These maps, including digital versions (ArcInfo) and supporting field notes, are available from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln School of Natural Resources. As a direct consequence of this mapping, I have published peer-reviewed articles on the Chadron Formation (Terry & LaGarry 1998), the Brule Formation (LaGarry 1998), the mapping of surficial deposits (Wysocki & others 2000, 2005), and local faults (Fielding & others 2007). Stratigraphic studies intended to revise and reclassify the remaining rocks and surficial sediments of northwestern Nebraska and adjacent South Dakota are ongoing. In addition to my ongoing geological work in Nebraska, I led teams of students and faculty at Oglala Lakota College to study the geology, groundwater, surface water, and heavy metal contaminants of southwestern South Dakota and the Pine Ridge Reservation (LaGarry & Sanovia 2014). From 2012-2018, our research was funded by the National Science Foundation’s Tribal Colleges and Universities Program (NSF TCUP) and the Experimental Program for Stimulating Competitive Research (NSF EPSCoR), and the USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Tribal College Equity Program. We worked in close partnerships with Chadron State College, the South Dakota Geological Survey, the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, South Dakota State University, the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, the University of Illinois Center for Advanced Materials Purification of Water Systems, the Department of Health Physics at the University of Michigan School of Nuclear Engineering, the University of Washington Native American Research Center for Health, and the Technological University of Darmstadt, Germany. I have authored or coauthored reports detailing the preliminary results of studies describing toxic heavy metal contamination of drinking water on the Pine Ridge Reservation (Salvatore & others 2010, Botzum & others 2011), characteristics of our local aquifers (Gaddie & LaGarry 2010, LaGarry & others 2012), potential uranium contamination risk to communities on the Pine Ridge Reservation (LaGarry & Yellow Thunder 2012), the transmission of uranium-contaminated water along regional faults (Bhattacharyya & others 2012), levels of ionizing background radiation in Oglala Lakota County (Garnette & others 2017), and the contamination potential of soils derived from uraniferous bedrock (Vasek & others 2017), among others.

Jeffrey Paul Schaffer I strongly disagree. Geomorphology is not a belief system like Christianity. It is science.

Let me quote Tim Minchin here:

"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."

What are the beliefs in Geomorphology that could not be overturned by observation?

I echo Benni's thoughts in the above post, having some experiencecin this field myself (see Wysocki & others 2011 here on RG). Geomorphology is a science that, until recently, lacked some necessary tools. The modern digital age and its ability to capture images from satellites has changed that. Whenever I see a computer generated animation of sea level rise and coastlines inundated, I see a geomorphological model in action that leaves a striking impression on its viewers. This shows me that geomorphology is on the verge of realizing its potential. I remember a time when my own field, paleontology, was dismissed as a belief system because no one had directly observed evolution taking place. And then, while people closely watched little fish in Lake Victoria, we did. Those of us that practice disciplines like geomorphology and paleontology are not priests or believers, just keen observers a liitle bit ahead of the curve. Pioneers in emerging disciplines, I suppose.

I am an engineer with experience in hydrology and hydraulics. I am not a geomorphologist, although I have a nodding acquaintance with it. However, the philosophical nature of the question posed and the excellent comments by all have inspired me to make a general statement about field work.

Filed work is hard and time consuming. It is also a career killer; one cannot get fame or fortune through field work; it is considered second rate work.

Now a days, numerical modeling is in fashion and helps career advancement. It is also easy and unending - unending in the sense that one can play with numbers forever without stopping when the usefulness of number crunching stops.

As a result, field work has attracted only a few good professionals during the last half a century. Many disciplines such a geomorphology and hydrology have suffered. Sad but that's the reality.