<?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>Richard B. McCammon</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>1979</dc:date>
  <dc:description>&lt;p&gt;It used to be that university students took up geology because they were attracted to the outdoors. This attraction developed perhaps because of a weekend field trip, or a summer field camp, or, for the lucky ones, a field season with an oil company. Whatever the reason, to be a geologist was to be among rocks. Traditionally, the role of the geologist has been to unravel the Earth's past. It has not been easy. Ask anyone who has taken a close look at a rock. Invariably, there is a multiplicity of explanations of how any rock came into existence. What is recorded in all probability is a multiplicity of past events, the evidence being only partly preserved; the rest has been obliterated. As a consequence, the rock record is largely incomplete. This is what has made the science of geology so interesting. It is also what has made it so difficult. Interpreting the past has more than its share of uncertainty.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br data-mce-bogus="1"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.3133/ofr791245</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>U.S. Geological Survey</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>Statistics and earth sciences; a challenge for the 80's; the geologists viewpoint</dc:title>
  <dc:type>reports</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>