Talk About Geologic Time in Ma or Myr

Talk About Geologic Time in Ma or Myr Geologists have a bit of awkwardness in their language in talking about the deep past: distinguishing dates in the past from durations  or ages. Ordinary people dont have a problem with the weirdness of historical time- in 2017; we can easily say that an event in B.C.E. 200 happened 2216 years ago,  and that an object made back then is 2216 years old today. (Remember, there was no year 0.) But geologists have a need to separate out the two types of time with different abbreviations or symbols, and there is a debate about establishing a standard way of expressing it. A widespread practice has arisen in the last few decades that gives dates (not ages) in the format X Ma (x million years ago); for example, rocks that formed 5 million years ago are said to date from 5 Ma. 5 Ma is a point in time that is 5 million years from the present. And instead of saying that a rock is 5 Ma old, geologists use a different abbreviation, such as m.y., mya, myr, or Myr (all of which stand for millions of years, in reference to age or duration). This is a little awkward, but the  context makes things clear. Agreeing on a Definition for Ma Some scientists see no need for two different symbols or abbreviations, as something formed 5 million years before the present would indeed be 5 million years old. They are in favor of one system or set of symbols for all sciences, from geology and chemistry to astrophysics and nuclear physics. They wish to use Ma for both, which has caused some concern from geologists, who want to make the distinction and view it as unnecessarily confusing going forward to have Ma apply to both. Recently the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) convened a task force to decide on an official definition of the year to go into the Systà ¨me International or SI, the metric system. The exact definition isnt important here, but the symbol they chose, a, (for the Latin annus, which translates to year) would override geological custom by requiring everyone to use Ma for millions of years ago, ka for thousands of years ago, and Ga for billions of years ago, etc. everywhere. That would make writing geology papers somewhat harder, but we could adjust. But Nicholas Christie-Blick of Columbia University has looked more deeply at the proposal and cried foul in GSA Today. He raised an important question: How can SI accommodate the year as a derived unit when SI rules require that these must be simple powers of base units? The metric system is for physical quantities and measurable distances, not time: points in time are not units. Theres no room in the rules for a derived unit called the year, which would be defined as 31,556,925.445 s. Derived units are things like the gram (10 -3 kg). If this were a legal dispute, Christie-Blick would be arguing that the year has no standing. Start over, he says, and get buy-in from geologists.

The Purpose of Dissenting Opinions in the Supreme Court

The Purpose of Dissenting Opinions in the Supreme Court A dissenting opinion is an opinion written by a justice who disagrees with the majority opinion. In the U.S. Supreme Court, any justice can write a dissenting opinion, and this can be signed by other justices. Judges have taken the opportunity to write dissenting opinions as a means to voice their concerns or express hope for the future. What Happens When a Supreme Court Justice Dissents? The question is often asked why a judge or Supreme Court justice might want to write a dissenting opinion since, in effect, their side lost. The fact is that dissenting opinions can be used in a number of key ways. First of all, judges want to make sure that the reason why they disagreed with the majority opinion of a court case is recorded. Further, publishing a dissenting opinion can help make the writer of the majority opinion clarify their position. This is the example given by Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her lecture about dissenting opinions. Secondly, a justice might write a dissenting opinion in order to affect future judgments in cases about situations similar to the case in question. In 1936,  Chief Justice Charles Hughes stated that â€Å"A dissent in a Court of last resort is an appeal...to the intelligence of a future day...† In other words, a justice might feel that the decision goes against the rule of law and hopes that similar decisions in the future will be different based on arguments listed in their dissent. For example, only two people disagreed in the Dred Scott v. Sanford case that ruled that African-American slaves should be viewed as property. Justice Benjamin Curtis wrote a forceful dissent about the travesty of this decision. Another famous example of this type of dissenting opinion  occurred when Justice John M. Harlan dissented to the  Plessy v. Ferguson  (1896) ruling, arguing against allowing racial segregation in the railway system. A third reason why a justice might write a dissenting opinion is in the hope that, through their words, they can get Congress to push forward legislation to correct what they see as issues with the way the law is written. Ginsburg talks about such an example for which she wrote the dissenting opinion in 2007. The issue at hand was the time frame within which a woman had to bring a suit for pay discrimination based on gender. The law was written quite narrowly, stating that an individual had to bring suit within 180 days of the discrimination occurring. However, after the decision was handed down, Congress took up the challenge and changed the law so that this time frame was greatly extended.   Concurring Opinions   Another type of opinion that can be delivered in addition to the majority opinion is a concurring opinion. In this type of opinion, a justice would agree with the majority vote but for different reasons than listed in the majority opinion. This type of opinion can sometimes be seen as a dissenting opinion in disguise. Sources Ginsburg, Hon. Ruth Bader. The Role of Dissenting Opinions. Minnesota Law Review. Sanders, Joe W. The Role of Dissenting Opinions In Louisiana. Louisiana Law Review, Volume 23 Number 4, Digital Commons, June 1963.