<HTML>Hey Claire -
I think the works Alex pointed to you show how Schoch has nailed his colours to the mast of rainfall-weathering ONLY, to the exclusion of all other possible explanations (that accord better with the history of the site). He insists on his view, when its historical implications are dubious and actually run counter to the evidence at hand. Insisting on an idea that gets weaker with every analysis is bad science, in and of itself. You HAVE to be willing to alter your view in the face of new evidence or more sophisticated analysis. Failure to do so is bad science.
Also, Schoch's vaunting of his objective dispassionate scientific attitude (which gets pretty tedious in "Voices," if I recall) is seriously belied when he admits he was already interested in cyclic catastrophism and lost human cultures when West approached him in the early 1990s. (I recall reading this somewhere in Schoch's writings, but I can't recall where. So , if I am wrong about this detail, disregard this point.)
Best wishes,
Garrett</HTML>