Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
studies locate the epicenter in Brooklyn, new York, and judge it the stron-
gest earthquake on record for the new York region.
34
Along with information
from the Weather Bureau's observers and newspapers, Rockwood amassed
about 150 reports from private citizens.
35
By the end of the month, he
was able to furnish a preliminary report in the
American Journal of Science,
describing an affected area with boundaries “along the coast states from
Washington, District of Columbia, and Baltimore, Maryland, to Portland,
Maine, and Burlington, Vermont; and on the west . . . a nearly straight line
from Burlington to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.”
36
However, the initial report-
ing on the earthquake of 1884 put American science to shame.
The most extensive coverage appeared in the
New York
Herald,
including
a two-page spread on 12 August featuring interviews with most of the lead-
ing east Coast scientists.
37
They contradicted each other at every turn. John
Wesley Powell, for instance, claimed that “earthquakes are probably inde-
pendent of meteoric and to a large extent of astronomic conditions.” Yet ac-
cording to Simon newcomb of the naval Observatory, it was “impossible to
say” “whether or not earthquakes are influenced by cosmic causes.” Powell
also claimed that the interior of the earth was undoubtedly molten, while
William Harkness at the naval Observatory said the latest evidence pointed
to a completely solid earth. none of the scientists evinced any knowledge
of the tectonic theory. One reporter offered the deadpan understatement:
“Geologists do not agree as to the cause of earthquakes.” The headline
“Harvard's Wisdom” was an ironic introduction to a statement from the
astronomer edward Pickering, who admitted that he had no information
to offer. According to Pickering, there was no system for observing earth-
quakes in the northeast because they were so rare. James Dwight Dana,
Silliman's successor at Yale, apparently responded to a question about the
earthquake by saying that he “saw no occasion for it.”
38
The
Herald
added to
the impression of confusion with headlines and pull quotes such as “noth-
ing Known—everything Known”; “no Little indignation among Professors
at the Unexplained Phenomena,” “The Science Only Beginning”; “As igno-
rant of the cause as of any subject about which we know nothing.”
39
The
Columbia geologist John Strong newberry joked to a reporter, “i want to
show you my credentials.” Out came an old sheaf of paper addressed to
the “Professor of earthquakes, Columbia College, new York.” newberry ex-
plained that it came from a witness to the Bay Area quake of 1865 “who had
a theory concerning earthquakes that he wanted to ventilate.”
40
The joke, of
course, was the absurdity of the academic title, “Professor of earthquakes.”
Readers would have come away with the impression that seismology hardly
deserved to be called a science.
