[Terrapreta] The Science of Terra Preta Formation

[gordon eliott]

why are tropical soils poor? no humus - which gets eaten by humus eating
termites
why are temperate soils often so rich? termites do not survive in the cold.

i suggest http://charles_w.tripod.com/laterite.html for some deep soil
philosophy with an informed evolutionary perspective.
it seems to me that terra preta is an inadvertant discovery of providing a
place where microbes and nutrients can reside (like the humus of temperate
soils). termites can digest the long chain cellulose molecules - but not
carbon.
best wishes
gordon eliott

On 06/04/2008, Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>
> Dear Sean
>
> Sean K. Barry wrote:
> > Hi Kevin,
> >
> > There is much archeolgical evidence about pottery shards in TP.
>
> I would not call it evidence, so much as I would call it "Archeological
> Observations." They have loads of archeological observations about the
> nature of pottery shards and their presence in Terra Preta. These
> observations have indeed been used as evidence to support the hypothesis
> that Terra Preta has been made by Man.
> > As far
> > as I know, nobody has presented a proven, credible explanation for the
> > presence or purpose or significance of the pottery shards found in TP.
>
> Exactly! I have seen nothing to show that pottery shards are a necessary
> constituent to Terra Preta, or equally, nothing to show that it is not a
> necessary constituent. It seems to me that the pottery shards have been
> observed and assessed as archeological curios, with little to no effort
> to explain how they got into the TP, or why they are there, or their
> significance to TP manufacture.
> > I think it might be more productive to observe what pottery evidence
> > there is and speculate to form a hypothesis for how it was used,
>
> What would would you look for in the pottery shards, or how would you
> propose that these Archeological Observations be further used as
> evidence?  Do you not need to first pose a hypothesis, and then seek to
> prove or disprove it? How do you know what to look for, if you do not
> first have a hypothesis?
> > rather than speculate or hypothesize a use and then go looking for
> > evidence to support that speculation.
>
> Any hypothesis is a "speculation":
>
>   1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or
>      scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
>   2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or
>      investigation; an assumption.
>   3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.
>
> Demanding that one presents proof before one formulates a hypothesis is
> very unscientific. A "cart before the horse" condition.
> > The reason I say this is that the evidence supports the whole process,
> > development of the hypothesis and support of that hypothesis.
>
> In my opinion,  you have it exactly in reverse. In my opinion, the
> process is:
> 1: Form an initial hypothesis
> 2: Refine the initial hypothesis and develop it further
> 3: Find evidence to prove or disprove the hypothesis.
>
> This is how I am proceeding. I formed and posted my initial hypothesis,
> and sought comment from this Forum. Isn't that a reasonable, methodical
> and Scientific way to proceed? I am in the process of analysing the
> feedback, with a view to refining the hypothesis. Evidence is not
> necessary to form a hypothesis. Rather, evidence is necessary to prove
> or disprove a hypothesis.
> >   It is a weaker argument only to confirm the consequence or
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
> That reference is irrelevant at the stage of the formation and
> development of a hypothesis. However, it is very relevant at the stage
> where proof or disproof of a hypothesis is being claimed.. However, we
> are not there yet... I am still working on development of a hypothesis
> to explain the origin and development of Terra Preta.
>
> It is impossible to prove or disprove a hypothesis until after the
> hypothesis is stated. An Archeological observation or phenomenon is not
> evidence unless it is being used to prove or disprove a hypothesis. As
> far as I am aware, the only use of pottery shards as actual evidence is
> to support the Terra Preta Anthropogenic Hypothesis, that Man was
> involved in the production of Terra Preta.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > SKB
> >
> >     ----- Original Message -----
> >     *From:* Kevin Chisholm <mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> >     *To:* Tom Miles <mailto:tmiles at trmiles.com>
> >     *Cc:* 'Terra Preta' <mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> >     *Sent:* Saturday, April 05, 2008 5:28 PM
> >     *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] The Science of Terra Preta Formation
> >
> >     Dear Tom
> >
> >     Tom Miles wrote:
> >     > Kevin,
> >     >
> >     > One example is petrography used by paleobotanists and
> >     archaeologists to
> >     > identify the mineral components in terra preta pottery shards,
> >     as described
> >     > in references like Amazonian Dark Earths.
> >     >
> >
> >     That good work is more of an observation of what we can see now
> about
> >     Terra Preta, but it tells little or nothing about how Terra Preta
> was
> >     made, or how to make it now. That is more "The Archaeology of Terra
> >     Preta", rather than "The Science of Terra Preta Formation."
> >
> >     Once a credible theory or hypothesis for Terra Preta Formation is
> >     presented, THEN we will know what archeological evidence to look
> >     for to
> >     confirm or negate the hypothesis.
> >
> >     There is much archeolgical evidence about pottery shards in TP. As
> >     far
> >     as I know, nobody has presented a proven, credible explanation for
> >     the
> >     presence or purpose or significance of the pottery shards found in
> TP.
> >
> >     Do you have a credible explanation for why the pottery shards, as
> >     Archaelogical realities, are found in Amazonian TP?
> >
> >     Best wishes,
> >
> >     Kevin
> >     > Tom
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >> -----Original Message-----
> >     >> From: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net]
> >     >> Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 2:10 PM
> >     >> To: Tom Miles
> >     >> Cc: 'Terra Preta'
> >     >> Subject: The Science of Terra Preta Formation
> >     >>
> >     >> Dear Tom
> >     >>
> >     >> Tom Miles wrote:
> >     >>
> >     >>> ...del...
> >     >>>
> >     >>> We've had both science and speculation about how it all began in
> >     >>>
> >     >> Terra
> >     >>
> >     >>> Preta de Indio in the Amazons and how it can be recreated. And
> >     we've
> >     >>> tried to maintain a modest reading list/bibliography on the
> >     website.
> >     >>>
> >     >>> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/biblio
> >     >>>
> >     >>>
> >     >> What would you say is the Science of Terra Preta formation?
> >     >>
> >     >> Thanks.
> >     >>
> >     >> Kevin
> >     >>
> >     >>
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >
> >
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     Terrapreta mailing list
> >     Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org <mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> >
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> >     http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> >     http://info.bioenergylists.org
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080406/9f8a649d/attachment.html