Multiple Working Hypotheses: Equifinality and the Study of Landforms

Abstract

The problem-solving traditions represented by the method of multiple working hypotheses and the concept of equifi- nality are explored. The similarity between the method of multiple working hypotheses and the account of science contained in the critical rationalist philosophy of Karl Popper is noted and its association with the concept of equifinality examined. Several methodological problems associated with the use of the concept of equifinality are identified. These problems are considered in relation to the way in which explanations about the origin of landforms are developed, and the way in which landform terms are defined. The account is illustrated by reference to the literature on arroyos, terracettes and drumlins. It is suggested that the method of multiple working hypotheses offers a more secure foundation for explanation, and that the concept of equifinality is misleading. Scientific method is simply the procedure employed by scientists to solve problems. Within geomorphology this means the methods and conventions used for naming and explaining the origin and character of landforms. Explanation is based upon theory, and scientific progress consists of improving the theoretical under-pinnings of such explanations by testing the predic- tions made from such theories by actively seeking to refute them. Science proceeds, according to Popper, through the process of conjecture and refutation (Popper, 1972a and b; 1975). The approach to science outlined here corresponds to that described by the critical rationalist. Such an approach is by no means the only methodology cited by workers as describing the way in which science is supposed to operate. In an earlier paper (Haines-Young and Petch, 1980) we examined the major tenets of critical rationalism in relation to those of the 'inductivist school' and to the notions of 'normal science' and 'scientific revolutions' derived from the work of T.