Abstract The Moine Thrust Belt in NW Scotland is fundamental for developing an understanding of complex fault systems and continental tectonics. The high-quality geological mapping, exceptional structural interpretation and insight of the late nineteenth century that underpins this is chronicled here. The Geological Survey of Great Britain mapped the thrust belt over a 14 year period, at 1:10 560, but it took five decades for the individual 1:63 360 map sheets to be published. The mapping itself was hampered by access problems, illness and prevailing weather. The deployment of expert staff to this region of few apparent economic resources threatened the status of the Geological Survey. Map publication was hindered by the transition from hand-coloured to full-colour printing, together with the restrictions of publishing to a strict grid that incorporated complex geology outside the thrust belt itself. This history of fieldwork, publication and outreach by the Geological Survey is placed in an environmental and logistical context to identify the challenges not only for the mapping itself but also in sharing the results in publication. The execution of these activities provides lessons for developing coherent interpretation in complex geology and the challenges in charting their uncertainties and alternative explanations.

Abstract In 1888, inspired by fieldwork in what has become known as the Moine Thrust Belt, NW Scotland, Henry Cadell conducted a pioneering series of analogue deformation experiments to investigate the structural evolution of fold–thrust belts. Some experiments showed that imbricate thrusts build up thrust wedges of variable form, without requiring precursor folding. Others demonstrated a variety of fold–thrust structures and how heterogeneities in basement can localize thrust structures. These experiments are described here and used to draw lessons on how analogue deformation experiments are used to inform the interpretation of fold–thrust structures. Early adopters used Cadell's results as guides to structural styles when constructing cross-sections in thrust belts. His models and the host of others created since serve to illustrate part of the range of structural geometries in thrust belts. However, as with much subsequent work, Cadell's use of a deformation apparatus, with a fixed basal slip surface, biases perceptions of fold–thrust belts to be necessarily ‘thin-skinned’ (experimental design bias) and can simply reinforce established interpretations of natural systems (confirmation bias). So analogue deformation experiments may be unreliable guides to the deterministic interpretations of specific fold–thrust structures in the sub surface of the real world.

Abstract Archibald Geikie’s (1835–1924) field research led to better understanding of geological relationships and, ultimately, Earth processes. We consider three pieces of research in Scotland, from his early work on Skye through to the execution and impact of his 1860 expedition to the NW Highlands with Murchison, returning to Skye to consider arguments with Judd on igneous relationships. We describe the field locations and place modern interpretations in their historical context. We discuss how methods and approaches for building interpretations in the field were modified and improved through debates. Reliance on a few ‘critical outcrops’ served to anchor interpretation at the expense of understanding more complex exposures. Similar bias appears to have arisen from using simple exploratory transects which were only mitigated by proper mapping approaches. Significant misunderstandings between protagonists appear to have arisen through the reliance of text description rather than diagrammatic illustrations. The vitriolic nature of debate seems to have anchored misinterpretations, obscured interpretational uncertainty and promoted false-reasoning by inhibiting inclusive scientific engagement.