As a geologist I think it’s pretty normal for someone to be skeptical because most times what you see and analyse might be different from the next geologist. It’s about getting the fundamentals right, the mapping methodology has to be clear and well outlined. As mentioned, it’s all about what you see, so there needs to be a great amount of data that is accurate and well interpreted to back up your findings. It’s always good to compare with previous studies and be open to discussions with your peers.

This happened to me recently when a couple of senior executives, fueled by skepticism from some consultants, told me my geologic model developed after many days of detailed mapping was too complicated for Nevada. One problem is that geos drive the same roads to the same overlooks and do the same arm-waving under the same preconceived notions. Only a select few hike the hills and arroyos to find key exposures and *map them* (walk them out). In my recent case in NV, mapping along strike 1 km to the north shed significant light on the difficult structural relations of the mineralized zone, which, no surprise, had a poor 3-D model based on an incomplete understanding of the rocks.

Facing skepticism about geological mapping is a common challenge, as maps inherently involve interpretation and assumptions. In such situation what I do is to understand the root of the skepticism and Identify whether it arises from data quality, interpretation methods, or the way results are presented. It is important to acknowledge the uncertainities and be transparent about the limitations of the data and the uncertainties in your mapping.To me a geological map is more than an image—it's a hypothesis grounded in science, driven by data, and supported by geological reasoning. By confidently explaining your process, uncertainties, and rationale, you can build credibility and reduce skepticism.

When facing skepticism about geological mapping findings, present the thorough methodology, use reliable tools like ArcGIS, involve peer reviews, and provide supporting evidence like photos and lab results. Stay open to constructive criticism and be willing to revisit data. Align findings with established research and commit to continuous learning. This comprehensive approach ensures accuracy and reinforces the credibility of your work.

I’d start by outlining the techniques used in the geological mapping, such as remote sensing, geophysical surveys (like seismic reflection or GPR), and borehole logging. Emphasizing adherence to best practices and standards in data collection and analysis demonstrates that findings are based on reliable, industry-recognized methods.

Defending geological findings requires a clear, structured approach. Here's a guide to help you address: 1. Review your data: Ensure you have thorough documentation of your field observations, sampling, and analytical results. 2. Understand criticisms: Familiarize yourself with potential criticisms and be prepared to address them. 3. Focus on methodology: Highlight the rigor and reliability of your methods. Methodology Defense 1. Explain sampling strategy: Describe how you selected samples, ensuring representation and minimizing bias. 2. Discuss analytical techniques: Outline laboratory procedures, instrumentation, and quality control measures. 3. Highlight data validation: Share calibration, verification and validation processes.

Skepticism is not always looking at a negative outcome. But it's an opportunity to consider different scenarios which can be plausible. Geology has never been ONE outcome, but capturing geological uncertainties. Always go for LEARNER MINDSET.

Doing geological mapping even the geologist doing mapping should be skeptical as we are trying to find the differences between formations. As we are mapping we have to find the anomalies to be accurate in mapping as we have to see the contacts between, facies differences or age differences as long as differentiated in field. Geology as a major needs skepticism in order to understand the Earth and its depositional environment. Geeology itself is finding anomalies to understand environment which by its nature is skeptical.

Lorsque le scepticisme surgit, je questionne la compétence du sceptique. En sciences, on ne défend pas un travail, on l’expose de façon transparente à des pairs qui en jugent la pertinence. Il n’est pas ici question de scepticisme mais de questionnement sur la discussion de l’hypothèse et des données que l’on utilise pour le faire.