<?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;There are models we might like to accept that just dont fit gravity, magnetic, or electrical data. This benefit of modeling is important. It forces the interpreter to prove that an interpretation is possible, and it eliminates impossible models even seismic models. A simple depth estimate may be all the model one needs to eliminate an idea. Other times, we need a careful and detailed model to help us understand what’s possible and unambiguously impossible.&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 5: Concerning nonuniqueness</dc:title>
  <dc:type>chapter</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>