Reading #5--More on reading the literature

 I just had an experience of a type I mentioned in Reading #2.  I am working on the Navajo Sandstone, which is the deposit of an ancient desert (actually, the largest sand desert in Earth history--if you've been to Zion National Park, you've seen the Navajo Sandstone).  I recently got interested in what I thought was a rather small problem, a curiosity, really.  I thought it might make a neat little paper of interest but no huge significance.  Turns out it is not a small problem at all and has turned out to be potentially way more important than I had guessed.  In geology, we spend a lot of time scouring the literature for other examples of what we observe in an effort to learn more about how to interpret what we're seeing.  So far, I haven't found any other examples.  That, in itself, is pretty exciting because it means that figuring out why we're seeing what we're seeing is turning out to be a lot more challenging than I anticipated.

But that isn't what this blog is about.  In Reading #2, I alluded to the fact that it's important to read the literature to make sure there aren't arguments against what you think is going on, not just arguments in support of your ideas.  I was actually thinking about taking the lazy route and just eliding this because "everyone knows this", but gritted my teeth and dug into the literature.  What I found surprised me.  While it didn't exactly blow up my idea, it did cause me to hedge my bets and reevaluate some of what I'm seeing.  The paper is going to be way stronger for that effort.  What I thought "everyone knows" turns out to be a lot more complex and subtle.  And that is exciting science.