It is noticed while going through the modern day papers except a few structural geological and sedimentological papers that the general approach is to collect samples and take as less field traverse as possible and analysed after coming back to lab and interpret in a smart sophisticated way and publish. In fact may be field visit is the purpose to collect samples. The small domain field based papers are not suitable for global readers but after including all small domain one can talk about larger area, perhaps entire cratons. Other than mineral identification and some petrological works which required high magnification and some chemistry of elements, field observation is ultimate. Therefore, it should not be neglected. Infact, even radiometric dating can be challenged sometimes with field relationships. Good structural interpretation must be given more value over dating. As chances of error is more in case of instrumentation.
You are both correct & incorrect also. Yes, routine field base geological data/map that used to get published in the form of reports/notes(e.g. Geology & structure of some area etc) till the eighties are no longer appreciated unless it is from area/region for which such map/data are not available. With the availability of analytical facilities more emphasis is given on quantification rather than qualitative description. In place of area specific geological work today's emphasis is on theme base work supported by laboratory data, be it geochemical, geochronological etc. Note that publication houses are doing business and for them it necessary that themes/subjects with global implications are more acceptable rather than local/regional data. If one can package his/her local geological data/map supported with necessary lab data in regional/global theme/ perspective, the same gets accepted in peer reviewed journals. However in attempting such an approach huge gap is generated between subjective perception and objective reality associated with the geological problem vis-a-vis prognostication.
Impressive comments!! Truly written factual information. However sir, Classical field work s related contributions are not saturated. There are a lot of things must be published apart from mapping. For example I have seen so many theoritical papers on felsic volcanics but after reading the paper as well as books we face difficulties in a different context to practically recognize the features characteristics of same in the field. I mean there should be a parallel approach regarding field geology. It's applicable to any of the branches in geology which can be visualize in a simplified way. The lab can tell in case of Bimodal volcanism a characteristic tectonic setting should get. But, my question is there should be some field based simple manners of reference papers which gives guidance , like " ok this is not chert but felsic volcanics." Otherwise false field identification leads to blunder.
Sincerely
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Esthetics
- Interpretation