Pseudogeophysics
;)
Seventy-five years ago, the first paper of the first issue of the journal Geophysics was published: Black magic in geophysical prospecting by Ludwig Blau of the Humble Oil and Refining Company. If you are an exploration geoscientist, you must read it. Then go and get someone else to read it too.
The paper is remarkable for a few reasons, apart from simply being first:
- it is scientific, but warm and humorous, and utterly compelling
- it is subtle but devastating in its condemnation of some of the day's technology
- the critical approach Blau obtusely describes is still relevant to us today
How to crack a nut
There are two parts to the paper: a brief spotter's guide to black magic, followed by eighteen examples from the author's own experience.
Blau's guide to the characterisitcs of a nutty inventor is timeless. It presages John Baez's wonderful Crackpot Index. Here are the highlights:
- The inventor has been working alone for many years, usually about 20
- The inventor has no formal training, regarding this as a hindrance
- The inventor has many Nobel prize-winning scientist friends
- None of these friends understand the contraption in question (owing to their hindrances)
Thus it was proved...
Yet more enlightening is Blau's categorization of geophysical technology. He identifies five modes of detection, from the merely implausible to the downright bizarre:
- Particle radiation, akin to α or β radiation
- Non-gravitaitonal forcefields, attracting 'bait' oil
- Radiant vibrations, detectable by skilled divination
- Electromagnetic waves, readily received by a radio
- Sexual emanations. No, really.
But it's the vivid descriptions of the contraptions and their inventors that light the paper up. Blau's brief but scathing reviews are so drily delivered, one imagines he must have been a man of few, but golden, words.
Here is Blau is describing the conclusion, and coup de grâce, of a hotel meeting with a pair of gentlemen peddling a stick which, when primed with a capsule of oil (or any other sought-after substance), points decisively to the nearest reservoir:
When the “bait” was changed to whiskey, the device in the hands of the inventor stubbornly pointed to a leather bag lying on the bed; the inventor asked his friend how this could possibly be explained since they had finished the last bottle that morning and he had not bought more. Upon opening the bag a pint bottle was revealed and the friend admitted having bought it that afternoon without telling the inventor about it. Thus it was proved that the device was not manipulated or influenced by the operator.
I would give my eye teeth to have been a fly on the wall during that scene.
References
Blau, L (1936). Black magic in geophysical prospecting. Geophysics 1 (1). DOI:10.1190/1.1437076
I am very grateful to the Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, for permission to reproduce the first page and quote freely from this paper. The quoted passages are copyright of the SEG. The image of Houston, dating from 1927, is in the public domain and was obtained from Wikimedia Commons. The drawings are original.
geophysics, history in Science 
Reader Comments (8)
um.... Isn't this actually public domain?
From my understanding, anything before the Berne convention took effect in 1989 required a copyright notice.
I looked through the archive and the first issue I found with the copyright notice was volume 34 issue 5. (i.e. Oct 69)
I'm by no means a copyright expert but, but I think you had to have the notice to get it registered which was required before 1978?
It's a safe bet that any Geophysics papers before 1969 are probably public domain.
Given that it was nice of them to give you permission to reproduce the first page >.>
--
Anyhow, take a look at modern gravity studies. How many wildcats have been drilled on just a gravity high?
When you think of it a Gravimeter is basically a stick, a rock, and a spring. and that's all it really takes to find a salt dome.
To the layman this just looks like a rock handing from a stick, and that's essentially what it is.
It can be hard to tell the difference between someone who has a technique that works and someone who has one that just looks it.
---
As a Geologist I know often says: " I'd rather be lucky than good"
@Toastar: Thanks for reading!
I'm not a copyright expert either, but here's what I think is the case: copyright does not have to be asserted — it's a given, a moral right of an author and/or publisher. This is specified in the Berne Convention you mention. I understand that before 1988, for works produced in the US at least, one was unable to seek damages for unregistered works. But that doesn't mean the work was not protected by copyright. I guess it does mean that such protection might be rather useless, though.
But copyright does expire, usually after something like 50 to 100 years. Some copyright holders choose to extend copyright (I don't understand how, but I understand why), and I understand if SEG has chosen to do this with this paper, because it is special to them.
When I wrote to the SEG about this paper, I was expecting them to say it was public domain. They said they'd rather direct people to the SEG Digital Library, and I chose to respect their wishes.
As for the difficulty of spotting bona fide technology, I agree you can't go around simply doubting everything new or odd-looking. Blau recommends some healthy skepticism. And I sometimes mentally apply the real acid test: if this technology is so awesome, why aren't you drilling wells?
@Toastar: I just dug out the email I got from SEG and here's what they told me:
Well I was looking at this page: http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/okbooks.html
"Certain works copyrighted in 1923 or later may already have entered the public domain. In particular, works published in the US before 1989 without proper copyright notice, and works published in the US before 1964 whose copyrights were not renewed, may have entered the public domain. However, works from 1923 or later that were originally published in countries outside the US may still be copyrighted regardless of whether they were printed with proper notice or renewed."
This page is a little more clear though: http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm
I'm not sure if Journals are treated differently. Also the reproduction doesn't require the copyright notice, only the copy produced before 1989. So technically you probably might have to get a copy of the original to be sure. I guess one could check the copy at the Library of Congress.
Or you could pay the copyright office $160 an hour with a 2 hour minimum. to check the registration. there are more then a few copyright owners who believe they still own a copyright yet the accidentally let the registration slip, often times it doesn't get checked until someone gets sued though.
Assuming they did register and renew it properly it would be under copyright until 2031.
Of course then there is the ethical thing to do and just ask for permission like you did, SEG has a pretty lax fair use policy. It's not like they're the RIAA going around suing everyone.
"...we do want readers to come to our site to find it."
If anyone from the SEG is reading this: I went to your site, I found it, I saw it would cost me $29, I went away again.
On a lighter note "sexual emanations" might explain why some of the more baffling prospects I have seen drilled ever got past management.
@Richie: On this subject, it's worth reading George Monbiot's recent piece in the Guardian, and the dozens of commentaries and rejoinders on the interweb. I'm sure no-one is adding up the cost of lost opportunity (to inspire, engage, and educate). Most societies seem to think in terms of the revenue these charges bring, not the growth and reach that open access would bring in their place.
As for those prospects... you just made me spit my tea.
There have been a lot of good books about this subject in general. Unfortunately geophysics has had perhaps more than it's share of charlatans, misguided souls, and qwacks (is that a real word?). A book I really like for a general look at science issues is "Voodoo Science" by Robert Park (2000). A more general book is "Why do People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer (1997), and there are numerous other books and articles highlighting pseudoscience and charlatans. This is the first time I knew that the first article in Geophysics addressed it--very good starting point. I do plan to read it, but expect but expect that the craft has not really changed, just the terminology to fit the times.
Thanks for highlighting this article and issue.
@Dwain: Thanks for this comment the other day. I have that Park book! I must dig it out for another read. And I've read some Shermer online, but not the book. Thanks for the suggestion.
It was interesting to walk around the SEG Exposition with that article fresh in my mind. I saw more than a couple of dubious claims, as you'd expect, but the patter has improved. And no-one is using whisky to demo their technology any more.!