The notion of ‘ontology’ does not loom large in the science
of geology. In part, this is
because geology is wedded to geological history,
which, as in the case of its human counterpart, does not self-dissect neatly
into freestanding classes of elements.
Further, even synchronically,
the various rocks and minerals don’t form anything like the brilliantly
ordered structure of the Periodic Chart of the Elements.
Still, as a finger-exercise, joining our “The Ontology of …
“ hit-parade --
-- we try our hand at it here.
* * *
~ Commercial break ~
We now return you to
your regularly scheduled essay.
* * *
Consider orology: the study of the structure and genesis of
mountains.
Notoriously (this is a chestnut within semantics), the
notion ‘mountain’ is vague in two quite different ways: (1) what counts as a single
mountain, rather than a blip in a ridge;
(2) what counts as a mountain at all, rather than a hill or ‘eminence’.
Similarly, the idea of a ‘continent’ : (1) what counts as a single continent (is Eurasia one or
two?) (2) what counts as a
continent at all, rather than an island or atoll.
Only with tectonics
did the notion of a continent
become crisp and interesting.
It was realized later that the true
edges of the continents lay not
where the shorelines happened to be, but at the edges of the continental slabs
themselves, below sea level.
-- Richard Fortey, Earth
(2004), p. 142
The tectonic criteria in hand, it was then concluded that, 200
years ago, theory required a meta-entity, Gondwana, a supercontinent,
consisting of several that are separate today.
No comments:
Post a Comment