Customer Reviews

The Geomorphic Evolution of the Yosemite Valley and Sierra Nevada Landscapes: Solving the Riddles in the Rocks

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

People interested in purchasing this book should be aware that Schaffer's ideas presented here have yet to pass muster in scientific peer review (i.e., in a credible geologic journal), and that most past and active researchers in the Sierra Nevada do not support many of his conclusions. For a more detailed review, see P. W. Birkeland's review of the book in the journal Quaternary Research (Academic Press), v. 50, no. 2, p. 200-201. In essence, the abundance of qualitative observations and inferences presented in the book do not subsitute for calm, careful, directed research, field-based or otherwise. Also, there are too many straw men in the text, in which Schaffer misrepresents the works of other scientists before dismissing them. The highly negative references to other scientists are particularly inappropriate. Bottom line: the book covers a lot of ground, but the final conclusions remain scientifically hollow.

To address a few of the concerns of the review above, I am also a field-based geomorphologist (as are the other workers I refer to), and in no way am I "scared" of Schaffer's work. I am more than happy to entertain new and different ideas. Jeff's book, however, is prone to exaggeration and misrepresentation. If the ideas are valid, they should stand on their own merits, and pass scientific review, period. That is a fundamental tenet of the scientific method, and sets it apart from mere bluster. The fact that the ideas in Schaffer's book haven't passed this test does not mean they are invalid, but they should not be viewed as being scientifically rigorous.

Finally, the characterization of academic geologists as being "stultifying and dogmatic" bespeaks ignorance on the reviewer's part. A visit to any geologic convention will dispell that myth.

Schaffer's book is a fresh look at one of the paradigms of glacial geomorphology - that mountain glaciers are capable of large-scale erosion and create the valleys that they lie in. He concludes that they generally do not. He based this on more than a decade of field work in the Sierra Nevadas (more field work in this range that any other geologist - dead or alive). Dr. Clark is wrong. Shaffer's work is not a failed dissertation. Instead, it has been rumored that a geologist from a well known governement organization wrote a letter to Schaffer's dissertation committee asking that they stop Schaffer's work (his work was stepping on to many toes). Apparently, Shaffer could have received his PhD if he had re-written his conclusions to conform to the party line (the ideas put forth by previous workers). Schaffer has done the one thing that many workers have not done. He has gone in the field and let the data control the theory rather than let the theory control the data (this problem is not confined to geologists). I am a working California geologist and have been in the field with Schaffer. It is quite interesting to stand at a rest stop on I-80 and have Schaffer point out ridge tops and mountain peaks and give specific information as to the presence or absence of glacial information at those sites. You really get a feel for the level of work he has done after his arm has pointed out every ridge and peak over a 120 degree arc. If Schaffer is wrong, it would be a simple task to demonstrate it. He has documented so much specific data that all any geologist would have to do is go to the locations descriped by Schaffer and shown that his data is wrong or distorted (disprove the data and you disprove Schaffer's theory). Curiously, there is no indication that this has happened at all (Schaffer has contacted several geologists and offered to go in the field with them and look at the data - not one has accepted). All that has occurred is that professional geologists sit in their offices and snipe. Dr. Clark should read the more recent(2005) review by Dr. R. Dorn (available on the web). Yes, Mr. Shaffer's book has its problems, but it is a must read book for anyone interested in the developement of the Sierras.

The other reviewer of this release (Clark, a glacial geologist) does not like the upstart attitude displayed by Schaffer and poops on his conclusions. Other than for Birkeland, I'd like to know from Clarke which members of the academic community (that need to be protected?)have problems with this book.
I found it refreshing to have an actual on-the-ground 'field' geomorphologist, rather than, for example, an aerial photo mapper, draw conclusions about Sierran alpine landforms and glaciers. So what if Schaffer may be pushing the envelope, and simultaneously, pushing some academic egos around? Who are these 'past and active researchers' that
Clark defends in his review? The challenge remains in the field, where I'd wager Schaffer's work WAS careful and directed, rather than the calm, stultifying and dogmatic halls of current geoscience academia. I bought this book (used, $10) because Clark sounded really scared and his review was more of a classic attack on the messenger rather than his message; after reading most of it, I can see why. This book and the Sierras would make a good combo.

True Yosemite Hikers know Mr. Schaffer's contribution
to the park. Try on-line search with keywords "Yosemite Schaffer". This book is based on his research at Berkeley.
Until I read this book, I thought "the Yosemite problem" was
solved. But seems like not as you see in the review below.
As John Muir was attacked by Whitney, Mr. Schaffer is also
under attack.

I will read his book every time I come back from Yosemite hiking. Also this book will give me an idea of where to go next.