Geology and the historical process (or, on how a past is hammered-built)

Abstract

The analysis of literature concerning the Permian period reveals a profusion of contradicting theories, especially with regard to mass extinction events, paleogeography and paleoclimatology. This is due to the different paradigms (in their reductionistic and deterministic connotations) used by the different research groups and to the arbitrary personal decisions made during research development. Geology, as a historical science, embodies a high degree of subjectivity, since there is no direct access to the object under study. The climatic and geographic conditions of a given time interval can only be presumed, and even so must be based on uniformitarian premises of uncertain applicability. Thus a great number of theories compete in the attempt to construct a coherent past for the Earth. The number of theories, however, makes any analysis attempt an extraordinarily complex task. Theories that do not fit the paradigms of each research group are discarded, which makes each approach internally coherent but often incompatible with the others. In spite of this, the great number of theories is seen as something positive for the geological science, inasmuch as it generates unlimited possibilities of analysis. Also, the emergence of paradigms as something universally beneficial is questioned, for it causes the prompt disregard of competing theories. Such conceptual difficulty lead us to conclude that rather than a discovery of hard-working scientists, the geologic history is only a rational construction of the human brain and, as such, is subject to every type of interpretation and reinterpretation.

Key words: Permian, extinctions, Reductionism, Determinism, Kuhn, Popper, Bachelard.