Sean, Good points, except that the term paleogeography is already taken in earth sciences (which usually does need a 4 - or 12 - year program).
Cheers, Josh Lieberman On Nov 14, 2008, at 6:09 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Both (Brent and Sean) good points. I don't think anyone on this > list or in general is saying geographic theory or critical thinking > is bad. I've even seen GIS theory books on Andrew Turner's desk > (neo poster child natch) ;-) If anything I'd argue that neo is > leading more people to become interested in geographic theory and > methods. New folks may not learn them through a four year degree > program or an ESRI training class, but it does not mean they can't > become well versed in the subject. > > Also I'd call Google Earth a data visualization tool not a data > analysis tool. Most folks do their data analysis in something else > then visualize it in Google Earth. So, I'm not sure that Google > Earth is really supplanting geographic analysis (i.e. the climate > modeling replacement analogy) although it is definitely debatable. > > Just seems there is an artificial divide between paleo and neo that > is not really based on much substance. Unless you count vague > references to mistakes being made and bad things happening. Just > curious what is driving it all - outside of my various conspiracy > theories. > > FortiusOne Inc, > 2200 Wilson Blvd. suite 307 > Arlington, VA 22201 > cell - 202-321-3914 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sean Gillies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 5:15:36 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada > Eastern > Subject: Re: [Geowanking] Geophysics vs. Geography: Why does one > love geowanking and the other not so much? > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I would not normally spam the list with one of my own blog posts, >> but I'd love to get thoughts from the list on the topic. >> >> http://blog.fortiusone.com/2008/11/14/geophysics-vs-geography-divergent-viewpoints-on-the-geoweb/ >> >> In short it seems the geophysicists have really embraced geowanking >> type things - check out their special session on spinny globes: >> >> http://conferences.images.alaska.edu/agu/2008/index.htm >> >> Now compare this to Mike Goodchild's quote in the latest ArcNews: >> >> “In 2005, Google Earth was released, and people with little or no >> background in GIS, geography, or cartography began using it and >> other similar services to discover the power of map making. Some >> even began calling themselves neogeographers. Suddenly it was >> possible to do some powerful things with geospatial data without >> committing to what was often a difficult and lengthy learning >> process….But mistakes (by neogeographers) were and are being made, >> as often happens when powerful technology is put in the hands of >> people with little background in its underlying concepts and little >> experience in thinking critically about its products.” >> >> I have a lot of respect for Mike's academic work but this seemed a >> bit over the top. >> >> Any thoughts or response? >> >> best, >> sean > > I suspect we'd see somewhat different attitudes if an easy-to-use > climate modeling application that is to the CCSM as Google Earth is to > Arc* were unleashed on the public. Google Earth is disruptive to > GIS, it > isn't disruptive to geophysicists. I sympathize. > > Still, the length and difficulty of the GIS learning process is being > exaggerated, don't you think? > > Sean (still suffering from Post Navier-Stokes Stress Disorder) > > > > _______________________________________________ > Geowanking mailing list > [email protected] > http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org > > _______________________________________________ > Geowanking mailing list > [email protected] > http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
