Plate Tectonics: Assessments and Reassessments-Introduction'
CHARLES F. KAHLE'
Abstract Data from field geology, structural geology,
stratigraphy, paleontology, geophysics, and oceanography
are brought to bear on the problems of plate tectonics.
Many data favor the concept, whereas many do not. A
definitive work on the correctness, or incarrec:ness, of the
plate-tectonics concept has yet to be written because
present data are insufficient to make o final assessment.
The general theme of this volume is the as-
sessment and reassessment of various data, ob-
servations, and ideas about the earth as they
relate to the concept which has come to be
known as "plate tectonics," or the specific
version of plate tectonics termed by its authors
(Isacks et al., 1968) the "new global tectonics."
The concept of plate tectonics embodies the
ideas of continental drift, seafloor spreading,
transform faults, subduction (underthrusting of
the lithosphere adjacent to continental margins
and island arcs), and polar wandering.
The idea for this volume grew out of a sym-
posium entitled "Sea-Floor Spreading--Some
Different Viewpoints," which was held at Bowl-
ing Green State University, Bowling Green,
Ohio, on April 27, 1971. Speakers for this sym-
posium were Paul D. Lowman, Jr. (NASA),
Manuscript received, August 7, 1972.
Department of Geology, Bowling Green State Uni-
versity, Bowling Green, Ohio 43403.
I thank the authors for their papers, their for-
bearance with numerous questions, and their willing-
ness to revise manuscripts in the light of reviewers'
comments. I am indebted to the following persons for
their advice and criticism in the preparation of this
volume: Donald K. Baird, George V. Cohee, Charles
Corbato, Edwin B. Eckel, Alfred G. Fischer, Hollis D.
Hedberg, Richard Hoare, J. R. McGinley, Jr., Rich-
ard D. McIver, A. A. Meyerhoff, Peter Misch, Ed-
mund F. Pawlowicz, Ralph Ross, J. G. Smith, and
Curt Teichert. Thanks are due Kathryn L. Meyerhoff
and Robert Quick for redrafting several figures, and the
Marathon Oil Company, Findlay, Ohio, and AAPG,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, for furnishing secretarial assistance.
Special thanks are due Barbara J. Reynolds, without
whose special typing skills this volume would not have
been completed. I also thank the Department of
Geology, Bowling Green State University, which bore
the expense of the large correspondence and numerous
phone calls involved in the preparation of this volume.
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/books/chapter-pdf/3839587/9781629812182_ch01.pdf
by guest
A. A. Meyerhoff (AAPG) , Bryan Patterson
(Harvard Univ.), David W. Scholl (USGS),
Francis G . Stehli (Case Western Reserve
Univ.) , Curt Teichert (Univ. of Kansas). and
Peter J. Wyllie (Univ. of Chicago).
The volume brings together much widely
scattered material and contains an abundance
of worldwide references that are important in
studying plate tectonics. Some of the authors
favor plate tectonics, some are opposed to the
concept, and some are neutral. Collectively, the
papers ( 1 ) demonstrate the difficulty of the
struggle to understand our earth and (2) pro-
vide a classic example of the idea that science
is as much a struggle against ideas as for ideas.
Together, the papers also serve to emphasize
and reaffirm that the method of multiple work-
ing hypotheses should be utilized in science no
matter how appealing or widely accepted a con-
cept or model may be. Those who have fol-
lowed the development of the concept of plate
tectonics may have noted certain analogies with
the somewhat earlier "revolution" in biology
exemplified by molecular biology. As pointed
out by Chargaff (1971, p. 642): "The new
doctrinaire biology has won great triumphs and
caused great damage. By its readiness to explain
all, it has blinded us to the fact that we under-
stand only little." The fate of plate tectonics in
this context remains to be seen.
As noted by Arthur Holmes (1965), "Man's
achievements and speculations must be tem-
pered by the sobering reflection that while we
may often be wrong, Nature cannot be." The
hypothesis (Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff, this
volume; Maxwell, this volume), theory (Dick-
inson, 1971; Hammond, 1971), or principle
(Wilson, 1968) of plate tectonics is armed with
data and arguments of unprecedented sophisti-
cation. Is plate tectonics entirely right or en-
tirely wrong? If one considers this question in
light of the history of science, it would be
foolish to think in this way (Chamberlin,
1890). Instead, we might expect that in future
years plate tectonics will be found to be rela-
tively more correct than previously proposed.
 Charles F. Kahle
Therefore, whether right, wrong, or in be-
tween, it is well to take brief note of what has
been achieved by the concept of plate tectonics.
As noted in publications too numerous to men-
tion, it has brought about a revolution in the
earth sciences. Although impossible to measure
precisely, plate tectonics may constitute the
most widely accepted unifying concept in earth
sciences since the concept of uniformitarianism.
In contrast to other sciences, the earth sciences
have not been particularly noteworthy for their
ability to predict. Plate tectonics seemingly has
provided earth scientists with the ability to
make more and better predictions, not only
about what has happened and is happening to
the earth, but also what should happen to the
earth in the future. Regardless of the eventual
outcome of the plate-tectonics concept, it prob-
ably has promoted more new thinking about
new problems, and rethinking about old prob-
lems, than any idea or concept ever introduced
into the earth sciences. Therefore, earth scien-
tists owe a large debt of gratitude to those per-
sons associated with the development of the
concept because of the intensity and spectrum
of thinking which has been engendered. Plate
tectonics has received possibly more attention
in the popular press than any topic in the history
of earth sciences. On balance, this has been
good because geology and geophysics thereby
have been publicized and, hopefully, made
more appealing to prospective students.
The potential effects of plate tectonics on
teaching and on writing of textbooks were re-
viewed by Wilson (1968). Some measure of the
actual impact in these areas can be gained by
the extent to which textbooks published within
the past few years deal almost routinely with
this topic. To judge from student questions and
comments, student interest in understanding the
concept of plate tectonics is exceeded only by
interest in the impact which this concept may
have on industry and. especially, on jobs. These
topics have not received the attention they de-
serve relative to the more academic aspects of
the subject.
Most earth scientists who have attempted to
gain knowledge and understanding about both
the pros and cons of the new global tectonics
probably have found that the task is not an
easy one. It requires the study of a large amount
of material, some of which may not be easy to
understand, in both geology and geophysics.
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/books/chapter-pdf/3839587/9781629812182_ch01.pdf
by guest
Moreover, it requires, above all else, learning
and thinking on a truly global scale. It is
hoped that the papers in this volume will help
the reader to accomplish these goals.
The first paper is by P. J. Wyllie and the sec-
ond by G. A. Davis, B. C. Burchfiel, J. E.
Case, and G. W. Viele. These papers provide a
general introduction to the volume and an over-
view and brief history of the concepts associ-
ated with plate tectonics and their relations with
previous hypotheses or theories about the earth.
Davis et al. point out that many aspects of the
new global tectonics or plate tectonics were
proposed by geologists three or more decades
ago.
The next five papers-by J. C. Maxwell,
A. A. Meyerhoff and H. A. Meyerhoff, P. S.
Wesson, V. V. Beloussov, and L. S. Dillon-
are, collectively, a didactic and provocative as-
sessment of what appears to be wrong, and
right, about plate tectonics. These papers touch
upon factual, theoretical, and philosophical as-
pects of this concept. The papers by the Meyer-
hoffs, Beloussov, and Dillon provide alternate
explanations for many of the observations and
ideas associated with plate tectonics. The poten-
tial value of such alternate explanations is dis-
cussed in the paper by Wyllie. Wesson critically
evaluates much of the evidence in favor of
plate tectonics and explains why this concept
should still be regarded as a hypothesis or the-
ory rather than fact (Vine, 1971, p. 249). Max-
well discusses oceanic observations not pre-
dicted by plate tectonics and provides sugges-
tions for testing various ideas associated with
the concept.
The next three papers concern transform
faults. Mason Hill gets down to the core of
definitions and ideas involved in the use of the
phrases "transform faults" and "strike-slip
faults," and describes the similarities and differ-
ences between such faults. Hill notes that many
geologists appear to think that definitions are
not overly important. As an analogy, medicine
is regarded by some as an art rather than a
science, but at least medical doctors have defini-
tions that are reasonably rigorous (Taber,
1971). Attempts such as that by Hill to clarify
definitions applicable to plate tectonics are im-
portant so that one may determine readily
whether a particular worker is approaching the
 Plate Tectonics: Assessments and Reassessments
topic of plate tectonics from an artistic or a
scientific point of view. Paul Lowman presents
a rCsumC paper concerning the potential value
of orbital photography in the recognition of
transform/strike-slip faults in southern Cal-
ifornia and Baja California. His evidence from
the satellite data provides almost no support for
large-scale strike-slip movements, which are re-
quired if the faults he studied are transform
faults. Louis de Loczy reviews evidence which
suggests that ( 1 ) some of the transcurrent
faults on the South American continent are re-
lated genetically to the large fracture zones
which cross the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, and (2)
some of the transcurrent faults were active dur-
ing the Precambrian or very early Paleozoic. In
de Loczy's opinion, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge has
been in existence since Precambrian time. The
conclusions of de Loczy are of interest in con-
junction with a subsequent paper by A. A.
Meyerhoff and H. A. Meyerhoff in which they
conclude that linear magnetic anomalies in the
oceans date from the Archean and are geneti-
cally related to Archean shields.
D. W. Scholl and M. S. Marlow analyze evi-
dence, and the means of recognition of evi-
dence, for tectonic processes such as subduction
in modern and ancient trenches. Although they
find little indication of sediment deformation in
such trenches, they conclude that the evidence
is not compelling for or against plate tectonics
and that various interpretations are possible.
Their paper underscores the difficulty of study-
ing geology at great oceanic depths and points
up the need for more refined techniques to
carry out such studies.
It has been suggested that additional paleon-
tologic data would be helpful in discussions
concerning plate tectonics (Easton, 1971, p.
778). Additional data of this type are provided
by the next four papers in this volume. Col-
lectively, the data presented in these papers
are not consistent with moving plates, drifting
continents, and wandering poles. A. J. Boucot
examines early Paleozoic lithofacies, structural,
biogeographic, and animal-community distribu-
tion patterns. K. M. Khudoley makes two main
points: (1) the earth's carbonate belts gradually
diminished in width through Mesozoic time, a
fact which suggests to him that the earth has
not expanded through time; and (2) the dis-
tribution of ammonoid genera indicates that the
ocean currents of Mesozoic time were the same
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/books/chapter-pdf/3839587/9781629812182_ch01.pdf
by guest
3
as those of today. C. J. Smiley traces plant-
distribution patterns from the late Paleozoic to
the present and offers the intriguing conclusion
that records of plant distribution could be inter-
preted as consistent with continental move-
ments of much smaller scope than those gen-
erally envisioned previously. Could seafloor
spreading take place with very limited or no
continental drift? Mechanically, this idea seems
to be an impossibility unless all continental mar-
gins are subduction zones. However, outside of
the circum-Pacific rim, oceanic trenches (sub-
duction zones) are very rare. Smiley's conclu-
sion, based on floral evidence, is nearly the
same as a conclusion reached by Wesson (in
his first paper in this volume)-yet Wesson's
conclusion is based on geophysical evidence!
The reader is left to decide for himself the
validity and merits of the conclusions presented
by Smiley and by Wesson.
The final eight papers deal with geophysical
aspects of plate tectonics. Sir Harold Jeffreys
deals once again (Jeffreys, 1971) with the
modified Lomnitz law, a law whose conse-
quences seemingly prohibit convection currents
and, consequently, many of the ideas and
mechanisms associated with plate tectonics.
Many earth scientists seem to be unaware that
Sir Harold presented a unifying model of the
earth (see Jeffreys, 1971)-a model which is
like that of plate tectonics in the sense that it
also can be used to make certain predictions
about the earth-well before the advent of the
plate-tectonics model. R. S. Briggs discusses the
use of magnetic anomalies for making time cor-
relations, and cautions against the use of these
data in regions where independent geologic
control is poor. L. Knopoff deals with a
possible driving mechanism for generating the
motions of segments of the lithosphere. He dis-
cusses the low-velocity channel in the mantle
and compares the lithospheric drift velocities of
plates with and without embedded continents.
A. A. Meyerhoff and H. A. Meyerhoff review
interpretations of linear magnetic anomalies. In
their judgment, the magnetic anomalies are not
a "taped record" of magnetic events during the
creations of new ocean floor between continents
but, rather, are features first formed during the
last Archean cooling phase of the earth. They
suggest that the anomalies were modified at
various times to the present. A. A. Meyerhoff
summarizes the evidence for the presence of
 4 Charles F. Kahle
continental crust across the northern North At-
lantic Ocean. M. A. Salisbury analyzes an in-
cremental spreading model of plate tectonics
and finds that the magnetic, topographic, and
seismic features of the ocean basins conform to
such a model. R. C. Bostrom, M. A. Sherif, and
R. H. Stockman propose a hypothesis to relate
the earth's retarding torque to certain structural
features of the earth's surface. Finally, P. S.
Wesson contributes a second paper in which he
reviews evidence for and against convection,
especially in terms of the Lomnitz law. He finds
that the available evidence is not sufficient to de-
termine whether the Lomnitz law is applicable
throughout the mantle and, consequently,
whether the Lomnitz law (or a modified ver-
sion) is "fatal" to the idea of convection cur-
rents. Regardless, the point is clear from these
papers that the new global tectonics suffers
many defects, of which possibly the most seri-
ous is lack of a verifiable driving mechanism.
Solution of the driving-mechanism problem is
vital to the ultimate success or failure of the
plate-tectonics model.
In the conclusions of scientific papers it is
customary to point out areas in which further
research or writing may be worthwhile. In this
context, earth scientists might do well to heed
the admonition of Mears (1970), who stated
that, "Geologists by and large, have not been a
particularly philosophical lot. They have mainly
busied themselves with the immediate goal of
describing and interpreting the earth, rather
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/books/chapter-pdf/3839587/9781629812182_ch01.pdf
by guest
than reflectively contemplating the logic and
methods underlying their work." A definitive
work on the philosophical considerations re-
garding the pros and cons of plate tectonics re-
mains to be written.
REFERENCES CITED
Chamberlin, T. C., 1890, The method of multiple
working hypotheses: Science (old ser.), v. 15, p.
92-97 (reprinted, 1897, Jour. Geology, v. 5, p. 837-
848; 1931, Jour. Geology, v. 31, p. 155-165; 1965,
Science. v. 148. o. 754-759).
char gaff,'^., 1971: Preface &I a grammar of biology:
Science, v. 172, p. 637-642.
Dickinson, W. R., 1971, Plate tectonics in geologic
history: Science, v. 174, p. 107-113.
Easton, W. H., 1971, Paleontologists and paleontology
-an appraisal and a proposal: Jour. Paleontology,
v. 45, p. 773-780.
Hammond, A. L., 1971, Plate tectonics: the geo-
physics of the earth's surface: Science, v. 173, p.
4W1.
Holmes, A,, 1965, Principles of physical geology: New
York, The Ronald Press Co., 1288 p.
Isacks, B., J. Oliver, and L. R. Sykes, 1968, Seismology
and the new global tectonics: Jour. Geophys. Re-
search, v. 73, p. 5855-5899.
Jeffreys, Harold, 1971, The earth, 5th ed.: Cambridge,
England, Cambridge Univ. Press, 525 p.
Maxwell, J. D., 1974, The new global tectonics-an
assessment: this volume.
Mears, B., Jr., 1970, The nature of geology: New
York, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 248 p.
Meyerhoff, A. A,, and H. A. Meyerhoff, 1974, Tests
of plate tectonics: this volume.
Taber, C. W., 1971, Cyclopedic medical dictionary,
11th ed.: Philadelphia, F. A. Davis Co.
Vine, F. J., 1971, Sea-floor spreading, in I. G. Gass,
P. J. Smith, and R. C. L. Wilson, eds., Understand-
ing the earth: Cambridge, Mass., M.I.T. Press,
p. 233-249.
Wilson, J. T., 1968, Debate about the earth: a revolu-
tion in earth science: Geotimes, v. 13, no. 10, p. 10-
16.