During a decade-long, real-time, historical study of the impact/volcanism/mass-extinction debates, a diversity of primary historical data, including tape-recorded interviews and opinion surveys on debated issues, has been acquired from hundreds of scientists representing the many disciplines engaged. I argue that the current extinction debates have impugned uniformitarianism, and will have further-reaching conceptual and philosophical effects than even those of the plate tectonics revolution, which strengthened, rather than detracted from, uniformitarianism. At the advent of the Alvarez-Berkeley group impact hypothesis of Cretaceous-Tertiary (K/T) boundary mass-extinction in 1980, the plate tectonics paradigm, which perfectly accommodated uniformitarianism, had already come to form the basis for well-received, endogenous mass-extinction and faunal-change hypotheses. For that reason especially did uniformitarianism contribute to a poor reception of the impact hypothesis, which flew in the face of uniformitarianism. Impact theory's reception was further chilled because it was based on evidence (iridium) unfamiliar to the community charged with its appraisal, its mechanism of extinction cause was improbable in terms of canonical knowledge, and it was authored by aliens to paleobiology (the discipline mainly charged with its assessment). Irrespective of the causal hypothesis chosen, that choice became the strongest predictor of how the chooser would select and apply standards in all aspects of the debates. Correlation also appeared-although less strong-between disciplinary specialty and choice of hypothesis and between disciplinary specialty and the assessment of evidence. Most paleontologists were straightaway against impact, and most paleontologists who later accepted boundary impact(s) continued to deny impact(s) as the main extinction cause. Many paleontologists regarded the duration, severity, and other aspects of the K/T mass extinction in terms of the fate of their own fossil groups. Vertebrate paleontologists were almost unanimously opposed to impact-as-extinction-cause; in contrast, micropaleontologists-especially those treating planktonic calcareous forms-were most often favorably inclined. Almost all specialists intimately familiar with impacting and earth-crossing bodies were sympathetic to all of impact theory. All volcanologists I interviewed rejected the volcanist hypothesis. Authors and published supporters of endogenous alternatives to the impact hypothesis, in all cases examined save one, were opposed to the impact hypothesis. However poorly informed, scientists seldom failed to subscribe to one of the extinction hypotheses. The mind-sets (gestalts) of opposed polemicists seemingly precluded agreement on any of the important debated issues. Impactors (advocates of impact-as-extinction-cause) and volcanists (proponents of volcanism-as-extinction-cause) commonly used different standards of appraisal and weighted the same evidence differently. Collaborative teams-with members often from distant, isolated disciplines but almost always supporters of the same mass-extinction hypothesis-formed overnight, with many members redirecting their careers in order to participate. Impact's opponents sought to demonstrate a lack of the ubiquitous, globally uniform effects claimed for an impact. It is shown here that a perceived or claimed anomaly (stair-step extinctions), in terms of one theory (single-impact), can grow into a standard of appraisal that can force the revision of the challenged theory (single impact) into an accommodating theory (multiple impacts). The search for impact sites and the remapping and dating of great flood basalt bodies are being actively pursued. The successful application of new methods, techniques, and instruments across a diverse and growing research front has facilitated the formulation of increasingly sophisticated models of the effects of impacts, mantle plumes, and other processes on sublithospheric, crustal, and bio-spheric processes, but other important likely effects of impacting and explosive vol-canism are yet to be modeled. The intensity, fast pace, and disciplinary scope of this continuing upheaval are providing extraordinary views of the workings of science.