T95 Great Concepts and Controversies in Geosciences Since Steno’s Introduction of the Principles of Stratigraphy in 1669

Monday, 23 September 2019
8:00 AM - 12:00 PM
Room 106BC, West Building

DO MANTLE PLUMES EXIST?

Paper number: T95-2
Program: Technical Sessions
Time: 8:15 AM – 8:35 AM

Authors

Abstract

The “Plates vs. Plumes” controversy regarding whether deep mantle plumes exist or not is one of the foremost debates in current Earth Science. The Plume Hypothesis envisages a large, thermal diapir that rises from the core-mantle boundary and actively penetrates the lithosphere causing volcanism. It is powered by thermal energy from Earth’s core, works through convection in the mantle, and is independent of the lithosphere. Magmatism is actively driven and its quantity and chemistry reflect the temperature and composition of material in Earth’s deep mantle.

The Plate Hypothesis, its rival, is the conceptual inverse. It envisages simple leakage of magma to the surface from shallow depth as a passive reaction to lithospheric extension that opens pathways [http://www.mantleplumes.org/]. In this model, magmatism is powered by the forces that drive plate tectonics (likely primarily slab-pull), it is not driven by mantle convection, and it is unrelated to the deep mantle. Magmatism is passive and its quantity and chemistry reflect the fusibility and composition of local shallow source materials.

Many scientists feel that the greatest barrier to resolving the debate is not lack of scientific data but a philosophical problem. In that context it is instructive to consider the philosopher Imre Lakatos’ “methodology of scientific research programmes” in which the Plate and Plume hypotheses constitute competing research programmes. In Lakatos’s methodology, a research programme consists of a “hard core” – the central hypothesis – and a “protective belt” – a body of auxiliary hypotheses added to explain failed predictions. A research programme is “progressive” if the auxiliary hypotheses generate successful predictions and “degenerative” if they merely accommodate the data used in their formulation. The central questions in the “Plates vs. Plumes” debate are: (a) whether the Plume Hypothesis is “degenerative” and thus no longer worth pursuing; and (b) whether the Plate Hypothesis is likely to be a progressive research programme.

The history of competing research programmes in Earth Science can inform, and possibly help to resolve, the “Plates vs. Plumes” debate. We will describe the debate and compare it with past Earth Science debates to explore this new investigative avenue.

Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs. Vol. 51, No. 5

doi: 10.1130/abs/2019AM-339327

© Copyright 2019 The Geological Society of America (GSA), all rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted to the author(s) of this abstract to reproduce and distribute it freely, for noncommercial purposes. Permission is hereby granted to any individual scientist to download a single copy of this electronic file and reproduce up to 20 paper copies for noncommercial purposes advancing science and education, including classroom use, providing all reproductions include the complete content shown here, including the author information. All other forms of reproduction and/or transmittal are prohibited without written permission from GSA Copyright Permissions.