<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:creator>D. A. Chapin</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>1998</dc:date>
  <dc:description>&lt;p&gt;I offer these statements about the interpretation process:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;A contractor's job often consists of enhancing potential-field data to make them as interpretable as possible (by either the contractor or the client). In getting data ready for interpretation, I like to confine the work to “atural processes” and avoid arbitrary processes.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I see too many people abusing the facilities available in commercial software packages and applying polygonal fits of the third, fourth, fifth, seventh, ninth order and calculating residuals until something strikes a chord, and then off they go and interpret the results. Alternatively, all too many people apply arbitrary frequency-domain filters chosen to pretty up the data without a lot of thought about the consequence. Then you no longer have a potential field.&lt;/p&gt;</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>Society of Exploration Geophysicists</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>General philosophy 4</dc:title>
  <dc:type>chapter</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>