Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
paleontology anyone who converted to embrace it."
4
8
Michael
Rampino of New York University and NASA; paleontologists Leo
Hickey and Kirk Johnson of the Denver Museum of Natural History;
and Peter Ward of the University of Washington, plus a handful of
others, are exceptions, but they merely prove the rule. Some of the
reluctance to switch sides is undoubtedly due to honest convictions
firmly held, but some also results from the unwillingness of scien-
tists, being human, to admit in public that they were wrong. And the
role of tenacious skeptic, adhering faithfully to the old ways that
have served so well for so long, can be a proud one. Even if eventu-
ally proved wrong, one fought the good fight and can hold one's
head high. The trick is not to fight too long, or unfairly.
The critics of the impact theory next turned to argument 3: to
replace the Alvarez theory by showing that another process—one as
familiar to geologists as an old shoe—explains the evidence equally
well and obviates the need for a deus ex machina. If they could not
convince the pro-impactors of the error of their ways, at least the
anti-impactors could present a persuasive case that would shore up
support among those who had not yet made up their minds. The
Alvarez theory would then eventually be discarded in that large
dustbin of discredited theories.
