Sequence stratigraphy as a scientific enterprise: the evolution and persistence of conflicting paradigms

In the 1970s, seismic stratigraphy represented a new paradigm in geological thought. The development of new techniques for analyzing seismic-reflectio n data constituted a "crisis," as conceptualized by T.S. Kuhn, and stimulat ed a revolution in stratigraphy. We analyze here a specific subset of the n ew ideas, that pertaining to the concept of global-eustasy and the global c ycle chart published by Vail et al. [Vail, P.R., Mitchum, R.M., Jr., Todd, R.G., Widmier, J.M., Thompson, S., III, Sangree, J.B., Bubb, J.N., Hatlelid , W.G., 1977. Seismic stratigraphy and global changes of sea-level. In: Pay ton, C.E. (Ed.), Seismic Stratigraphy-Applications to Hydrocarbon Explorati on, Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Mem. 26, pp. 49-212.] The global-eustasy model po sed two challenges to the "normal science" of stratigraphy then underway: ( 1) that sequence stratigraphy, as exemplified by the global cycle chart, co nstitutes a superior standard of geologic time to that assembled from conve ntional chronostratigraphic evidence, and (2) that stratigraphic processes are dominated by the effects of eustasy, to the exclusion of other allogeni c mechanisms, including tectonism. While many stratigraphers now doubt the universal validity of the model of global-eustasy, what we term the global-eustasy paradigm, a group of sequen ce researchers led by Vail still adheres to it, and the two conceptual appr oaches have evolved into two conflicting paradigms. Those who assert that t here are multiple processes generating stratigraphic sequences (possibly in cluding eustatic processes) are adherents of what we term the complexity pa radigm. Followers of this paradigm argue that tests of the global cycle cha rt amount to little more than circular reasoning. A new body of work docume nting the European sequence record was published in 1998 by de Graciansky e t al. These workers largely follow the global-eustasy paradigm. Citation an d textual analysis of this work indicates that they have not responded to a ny of the scientific problems identified by the opposing group. These resea rchers have developed their own descriptive and interpretive language that is largely self-referential. Through the use of philosophical and sociological assumptions about the nat ure of human activity, and in particular the work of Thomas Kuhn, we have a ttempted to illustrate (1) how the preconceptions of geologists shape their observations in nature; (2) how the working environment can contribute to the consensus that develops around a theoretical approach with a concomitan t disregard for anomalous data that may arise; (3) how a theoretical argume nt can be accepted by the geological community in the absence of "proofs" s uch as documentation and primary data; (4) how the definition of a situatio n and the use or non-use of geological language "texts" can direct geologic al interpretive processes in one direction or another; and (5) how citation patterns and clusters of interrelated "invisible colleges" of geologists c an extend or thwart the advancement of geological knowledge. (C) 2001 Elsev ier Science B.V. All rights reserved.