Sequence stratigraphy as a scientific enterprise: the evolution and persistence of conflicting paradigms

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

In the 1970s, seismic stratigraphy represented a new paradigm in geological thought. The development of new techniques for analyzing seismic-reflection data constituted a “crisis,” as conceptualized by T.S. Kuhn, and stimulated a revolution in stratigraphy. We analyze here a specific subset of the new ideas, that pertaining to the concept of global-eustasy and the global cycle chart published by Vail et al. [Vail, P.R., Mitchum, R.M., Jr., Todd, R.G., Widmier, J.M., Thompson, S., III, Sangree, J.B., Bubb, J.N., Hatlelid, W.G., 1977. Seismic stratigraphy and global changes of sea-level. In: Payton, C.E. (Ed.), Seismic Stratigraphy—Applications to Hydrocarbon Exploration, Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Mem. 26, pp. 49–212.] The global-eustasy model posed two challenges to the “normal science” of stratigraphy then underway: (1) that sequence stratigraphy, as exemplified by the global cycle chart, constitutes a superior standard of geologic time to that assembled from conventional chronostratigraphic evidence, and (2) that stratigraphic processes are dominated by the effects of eustasy, to the exclusion of other allogenic mechanisms, including tectonism. While many stratigraphers now doubt the universal validity of the model of global-eustasy, what we term the global-eustasy paradigm, a group of sequence researchers led by Vail still adheres to it, and the two conceptual approaches have evolved into two conflicting paradigms. Those who assert that there are multiple processes generating stratigraphic sequences (possibly including eustatic processes) are adherents of what we term the complexity paradigm. Followers of this paradigm argue that tests of the global cycle chart amount to little more than circular reasoning. A new body of work documenting the European sequence record was published in 1998 by de Graciansky et al. These workers largely follow the global-eustasy paradigm. Citation and textual analysis of this work indicates that they have not responded to any of the scientific problems identified by the opposing group. These researchers have developed their own descriptive and interpretive language that is largely self-referential. Through the use of philosophical and sociological assumptions about the nature of human activity, and in particular the work of Thomas Kuhn, we have attempted to illustrate (1) how the preconceptions of geologists shape their observations in nature; (2) how the working environment can contribute to the consensus that develops around a theoretical approach with a concomitant disregard for anomalous data that may arise; (3) how a theoretical argument can be accepted by the geological community in the absence of “proofs” such as documentation and primary data; (4) how the definition of a situation and the use or non-use of geological language “texts” can direct geological interpretive processes in one direction or another; and (5) how citation patterns and clusters of interrelated “invisible colleges” of geologists can extend or thwart the advancement of geological knowledge.