Symbolism, allegory, and metaphor pervade Athanasius Kircher’s (1602–1680) Mundus Subterraneus ( The Subterranean World ). Elements from the communicative theory of semiotics are useful for exploring Mundus Subterraneus and for illuminating the modern reactions to his works. Kircher used Hermetic and Neoplatonic philos ophies as a bridge between medieval thought systems and the growing empirical movement of the Scientific Revolution. In Kircher’s studies, no event was taken in isolation, and his examination of Earth rested with Plato’s philosophy that the world was created by God as a manifestation of his own perfection. From a modern semiotic viewpoint, Kircher used indexical and iconic signs to combine rational and empirical techniques that sustained his holistic view of the cosmos. In the modern ideal formulation of scientific observation and inquiry, indexical signs are acceptable authoritative causal links between observation and interpretation. For Kircher, both indexical and iconic signs were legitimate articles to collect and employ because they were all manifestations of the Divine Mind. Iconic signs could be religious images or conceptual ideas that Kircher projects onto the workings of Earth.

Abstract At present, only geoscientists utilize geoethics. However, geoethics may have broader, societal use. To illustrate this option, one combines theoretical insights that stem from complex–adaptive dynamics, social–ecological systems, semiotic–cultural psychology and geoethics. The following qualitative framework appears. The human niche is a network of complex–adaptive social–ecological systems, which humans conceive and build to sustain themselves. Human sense-making and practices are intrinsic and non-separable parts of the human niche. The feedback of human sense-making and human practices is iterative. The resulting feedback loop is pivotal for the dynamics of social–ecological systems. Geosciences facilitate the understanding of the dynamics of social–ecological systems. Geoethics supports the sense-making of human agents, such as, currently, geoscientists acting in a professional capacity. However, geoethics is not geoscience-specific when promoting to act actor-centric, virtue-ethics-focused, responsibility-focused and knowledge-based. Therefore, geoethics may shape societal practices beyond professional geosciences. By delivering analytical insights as well as resources for affective sense-making, geoethics may enable citizens to mitigate the challenges to their sense-making that complex–adaptive social–ecological systems may pose. Hence, geoethics may offer cultural references (analytical and affective) when human agents (individual, collective and institutional) are facing the complex–adaptive (wicked) features of the human niche, such as anthropogenic pressure or participatory governance.

Nicolaus Steno (Niels Stensen, 1638–1686) is considered to be the founder of geology as a discipline of modern science, as well as of scientific conceptions of the human glands, muscles, heart, and brain. With respect to his anatomical results, the judgment of posterity has always considered Steno to be one of the founders of modern anatomy , whereas Steno’s paternity to the methods known today of all students of geology was almost forgotten during the 130 yr from 1700 to 1830. Besides geology and anatomy, there are other important sides of Steno’s scientific contributions to be rediscovered. Steno’s general philosophy of science is one of the clearest formulated philosophies of modern science as it appeared during the seventeenth century. It includes (1) separation of scientific methods from religious arguments; (2) a principle of how to seek “demonstrative certainty” by demanding considerations from both reductionist and holist perspectives; (3) a series of purely structural (semiotic) principles developing a stringent basis for the pragmatic, historic (diachronous) sciences as opposed to the categorical, timeless (achronous) sciences; and (4) “Steno’s ladder of knowledge,” by which he formulated the leading principle of modern science, i.e., how true knowledge about deeper, hidden causes (“what we are ignorant about”) can be approached by combining analogue experiences with logic reasoning. However, Steno’s ideas and influence on the general principles of modern science are still quite unknown outside Scandinavia, Italy, France, and Germany. This unfortunate situation may be explained by the fact that most of his philosophical statements had not been translated to English until recent decades. Several Latin philologists state that Steno’s Latin language is of great beauty and poetic value, and that translations to other languages cannot give justice to Steno’s texts. Thus, translations may have seemed too difficult. Steno’s ideas on the philosophy of science appear in both his many anatomical and in his fewer geological papers, all of which, with one exception (in French), were written in Latin. A concentration of his philosophy of science was presented in his last scientific lecture “Prooemium” (1673), which was not translated from Latin to English before 1994. Therefore, after the decline of Latin as a scientific language, Steno’s philosophy of science and ideas on scientific reasoning remained quite unknown, although his ideas should be considered extremely modern and path-finding for the scientific revolution of the bio- and geosciences. Moreover, Steno’s philosophy of science is comparable to Immanuel Kant’s 80 yr younger theory on perception, Charles S. Peirce’s 230 yr younger theory on abduction, and—especially—Karl R. Popper’s 300 yr younger theory on scientific discovery by conjecture and refutation. The general outset of Steno’s philosophy of science constitutes an important step from the medieval and the Renaissance way of thinking into the seventeenth-century appearance of modern sciences and the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. The eighteenth-century to present-day dichotomy of science into the traditional creationistic and the new historical interpretations to some extent can be traced back to Steno and his methods.

Abstract Relationships between geodiversity and culture are very close and frequent, and they are reflected in numerous and different areas, situations or levels. The purpose of this chapter is not to give an exhaustive overview of how geodiversity influences culture and vice versa (as this topic has already been thoroughly explored in numerous works), but it aims to analyse the relationship geodiversity–culture within the concept of abiotic ecosystem services (or geosystem services). This relationship is best visible and recognizable within the cultural and, eventually, knowledge services; however, other types of services (provisioning, supporting) are relevant too. Moreover, the relationship geodiversity–culture is reflected in everyday life, for example, in language; thus, a quick insight into these topics is also presented. Anchoring the geodiversity–culture relationships within the concept of abiotic ecosystem services may provide a framework for future interdisciplinary studies and may contribute to the better understanding of protection, conservation and sustainable use not only of geoheritage but of geodiversity as a whole.

Abstract This article discusses some important relations between the history and philosophy of science and the education of future professional geoscientists and teachers. A brief survey is presented of the discussions about the relations between these fields over the past 50 years, with an emphasis on the pedagogical role of the history and philosophy of science. A recent geological example is considered to pull together the conclusions advanced by some classic papers in science and geoscience. These conclusions reinforce the relevance of historical and epistemological reflections in improving the development of the profession and renewing educational practices, pointing out the potential of interdisciplinary learning and new innovative teaching methods. The careful, well-selected and documented utilization of controversial historical cases can foster experimentation and the comprehension of diverse examples of important scientific changes, thus contributing to a better education in the geosciences.

Abstract The scientific study of myth is dominated by a paradigm that recognizes myth as having been viewed as truthful narrative history by past traditional cultures and yet is considered false or otherwise suspect by the modern scholars who study myth. Although virtually all scholars recognize that myth was of critical importance for traditional cultures, the attempt to elicit scientific reasons for this importance has led to many competing theories, few of which place an emphasis on the validity of myths as representing the product of actual observed historical natural events. This paradox may hinder our understanding of the origins of myth and prevent us from fully appreciating a critical aspect of why myth was so highly valued by past cultures. To set the stage for our examination of the possible natural history core of myth, we discuss briefly the history of the western scientific study of myth, with an emphasis on geological sciences. We then explore the cognitive structure of myth and provide working principles about how the historical information contained in these myths can be transmitted faithfully through successive generations and can be elicited by scientific study. Although recognizing the extreme complexity of myth as a cultural product, our data indicate that a science-based natural history approach can lead to important insights regarding the nature of myth.

Computer information systems that will archive, query, retrieve, and display geologic information tailored to specific requirements are the foundation for a leap in scientific development similar to that fostered by the invention of the geologic map. In order to achieve this potential, some standardization of the conceptual model for basic elements of geoscience is required to provide a consistent framework for developing interoperable systems. Models for three concepts that are central to geologic science, Earth material, geologic units, and geologic structure, are proposed as a starting point for this framework. An Earth material is a substance defined by chemical constituents, in concert with crystal structure, physical properties, or properties related to the nature and arrangement of constituent particles. Earth material is a mass noun, not countable. A geologic unit is a part of Earth located and distinguished from other parts of Earth based on geologic properties. Geologic units are countable. A geologic structure is a configuration of Earth material within Earth, and may or may not be countable. The existence of a geologic structure requires the existence of some Earth material substrate. A top-level vocabulary defines subclasses of these concepts, and description schemas specify relationships and attributes used to characterize defined classes and instances that extend the top-level subclasses. The geologic models in this paper are consistent with the NADM-C1 model of the North American Geologic-Map Data Model Steering Committee with minor modifications, and addition of detail on a number of important points. A distinct knowledge-representation framework provides a foundation for the geoscience domain models. In particular, modeling of a geologic map as a knowledge representation device is separated from the problem of geoscience knowledge representation in general. Models are presented as Unified Modeling Language static class diagrams.