<?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;&lt;span&gt;The trend toward modeling is a healthy change from the days when “prospects” were located solely on the basis of closures on residual maps of mysterious and sometimes secret origin. Although residual maps are valuable for helping us notice unusual relationships, the business of exploration has become less tolerant of anything that raises more questions than it answers. A flurry of residual maps is a pretty good example of such a thing. Once an appealing target is noticed in a residual, its geologic origin ought to be questioned and justified in relation to the basic, measured data.&lt;/span&gt;&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 3: Concerning modeling</dc:title>
  <dc:type>chapter</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>