Dear Adil and colleagues:

I think the validity period of scientific results in Geosciences is different from one discipline to another, but all of the disciplineas share in common the concept of paradigm shift.

Since the "inflation" of the observations, data, and knowledge in Geosciences, e.g., Plate Tectonics, we constantly shift the paradigm from the older to the newer. When changes are dramatically, such as Plate Tectonics, you can talk about a period.

I strong recommend the The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn: As for his big idea – that of a "paradigm" as an intellectual framework that makes research possible –well, it quickly escaped into the wild and took on a life of its own.

An excelent example at present-day, is the concept of the Anthropocene: it has created a profound paradigm shift within the scientific community that we argue will create equally important changes in philosophy, history and politics. There is general scientific agreement that human activity has been a geologically recent, yet profound, influence on the Earth System. The magnitude, variety and longevity of human-induced changes, to the lithosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, biosphere and atmosphere suggests that we should refer to the present, not as within the Holocene Epoch (as it is currently formally referred to), but instead as within the Anthropocene Epoch. (taken from the American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2015, abstract id. GC14B-01).

I hope my answer can help to your own ideas, thinking about it.

My best wishes, Mario E. Sigismondi

As long as others disprove the results which approved and prevailing right now. Earth is so vast and so is geoscience which is ever evolving accordingly the results and facts about the Earth.

Thank you for your answer.

Dear Adil,

there is not a time-limit neither for data or results nor for theories but what you normally do is to check the results in newer publications. If the new ones are saying the same the older results can be used or cited.

Any scientific theory is considered valid as long as a new one doesn't replace it.

Thank you for your answer. I agree with you, Jorge. However, even if there is no new results (for any reason), field reality is in continous evolution (mainly under current socio-economic accelerating activity). Which makes that investigation should be as evolving as anrgthropogenic mutations. Else, it would be surpassed. What do you think?

Hi, Adil,

I think it depends on the scientific field. I am a geologist. Our data reality do not change at least not before a few million years have passed. But our interpretations change constantly. Mostly initial wrong ones I presume.

But in the field of history and anthropology, following new archaeological findings, it is not only changing the data but also changing the whole basis.

In the fields of social behavior and economy I would say that, although they changed definitions and the way they make research in such fields, both concepts did not change since civilization begun. Since the beginning people wanted to trade or sell but taking some advantage from the others and also tried to accumulate as much as possible to leave it for their families after their death. This did not change. The idea of a stronger stated better than the individual has been improved but did not change substantially.

When it comes to demography there have been shifts in recent times and thus the data need to be looked at periodically. Social science constructs like poverty, access to health care and other human needs, etc. are also constantly changing. Land use pattern also are changing but at a slower pace depending on the region of interest. Needless to say climate data is also changing slowly

Dear Adil and colleagues:

I think the validity period of scientific results in Geosciences is different from one discipline to another, but all of the disciplineas share in common the concept of paradigm shift.

Since the "inflation" of the observations, data, and knowledge in Geosciences, e.g., Plate Tectonics, we constantly shift the paradigm from the older to the newer. When changes are dramatically, such as Plate Tectonics, you can talk about a period.

I strong recommend the The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn: As for his big idea – that of a "paradigm" as an intellectual framework that makes research possible –well, it quickly escaped into the wild and took on a life of its own.

An excelent example at present-day, is the concept of the Anthropocene: it has created a profound paradigm shift within the scientific community that we argue will create equally important changes in philosophy, history and politics. There is general scientific agreement that human activity has been a geologically recent, yet profound, influence on the Earth System. The magnitude, variety and longevity of human-induced changes, to the lithosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, biosphere and atmosphere suggests that we should refer to the present, not as within the Holocene Epoch (as it is currently formally referred to), but instead as within the Anthropocene Epoch. (taken from the American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2015, abstract id. GC14B-01).

I hope my answer can help to your own ideas, thinking about it.

My best wishes, Mario E. Sigismondi

Hi there!

Particularly, I think this whole idea of an "Anthropocene Epoch" is an unnecessary non geological epoch.

All Eons, Eras, Periods and Epochs, were always related to extinction, tectonism or natural physical chemical planetary transformations.

We never had a geological Epoch marked by the dominance of a certain species or because of the changes that such species caused to the environment.

Start to call The Quaternary as Anthropogene did not improve geology in anything. It only served as a motive for group to be proud that changed a consecrated name into a term which even does not express the "anthopo" at all because Quaternary started with Pleistocene around 1,7 M.Y. ago but the "anthropo" ancestors are now referred to at least 5 M.Y. ago. In fact, if they wanted to rename the Quaternary because of a "supposed" species' planetary dominance this Epoch should be called "insectsgene" because now they are more than 1 million species while we are only one.

I recommend Mario's answer

Best Regards

Dear Adil Salhi,

This period of validity of the test results is correlated with the type of specific field of knowledge. In addition, specific research results are valid for a period of time until they are not questioned or supplemented with further results of other research undertaken and implemented in the analogous problems of the given domain of knowledge. In addition, specific fields of natural sciences are characterized by a fairly long period of research projects carried out and verification of their research results. This may also influence the period of subsequent validity of the results obtained from specific research in these fields of natural sciences and earth sciences. Geology is also a type of science for me. Best wishes