MULTIPLE WORKING HYPOTHESES
Scholarly Papers Which Specifically Mention "Multiple Working Hypotheses" in the Context of "Hypothesis"
Norms which develop in partic- ular scientific specialties tend
to define what constitutes an acceptable theory.
Schopf (1975) seemed firm that the Ruling Theory mentality was a serious issue for studies of the Precambrian. His point was that a normative acceptance of evidence as being “consistent” with one favored explanation is a far lower standard than requiring evidence to be “com- pelling” with regard to an alterna- tive explanation.
Figure 1. Frequencies of MMWH Mentions in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers.
2010; the significance of an apparent downtick after 2020 is not clear. However, even at what might be a historical high frequency of mention, references to the MMWH are found in only 1.6% of climatology papers as of 2010-2022.
The aforementioned trends in the geology and climatology literature must be viewed cautiously as the control data from the psychology literature also show an apparent uptick after 2020, albeit at a frequency (examples per 10,000 papers) which is at least one order of magnitude lower than for geology (Figure 1). However, visual inspection of the psychology pub- lication lists for 2020-2022 showed that most of the MMWH mentions are cross-references to biostatistics literature, espe- cially for neurology, or animal-behavior literature.
Even with some uncertainty related to accuracy and preci- sion of the Google Scholar search results, the statistical data suggest that the frequency of references to the MMWH in geoscience literature has not been constant through time — changes might have included alternating periods of decrease and increase across successive decades.
A Practitioner View of MMWH Importance
In addition to the publication searches used for statistical trend analysis (see above), a separate Google Scholar search was made specifically for geoscience review articles which mention MMWH. The search returned a list of 171 papers published over the period of 1970-2022, providing numerous examples of how different authors viewed the significance of MMWH. Most review articles found that the MMWH was under-utilized in geoscience research and opined on why that might be so.
Table 2 provides some representative examples of what authors of review papers have suggested as possible expla- nations for why the MMWH is not more widely evident in geoscience research. From those and other review papers, a few recurring themes are apparent:
Rapp (1986) acknowledged that geo- logic ideas adopted in archaeology sometimes become fixed and nearly immutable explanations even when other possible explanations are equally or more likely. Repetition of a familiar explanation can obscure the value of an alternative, but less familiar, explanation.
Burr et al. (2009) pointed out that planetary geology might actually be a discipline where the MMWH is more fully appreciated. Because the interpretation of geologic features on other planetary bodies has leaned so heavily on analogies with geologic features on Earth, a larger range of possible explanations has been honored in dealing with limits of available information.
Scientific tools identified as “models” do not uni- formly deal with uncertainties.
Hoosbeek and Bryant (1992) pointed out that a concep- tual model often is tied to a single hypothesis — so that all uses of the model perpetuate that single hypothesis as benchmark knowledge. In other words, a single working hypothesis tends to become a Ruling Theory.
Phillips (2013) and Batelaan et al. (2022), while work- ing separately on different topics, similarly concluded
that established practices in a particular field actu- ally discourage attention to model uncertainties — an approach which clearly is in conflict with the MMWH. Basically, utilitarian results are considered more important than deep thinking when adopting a model.
Scientific training is not uniform across disci- plines or time.
Betini et al. (2017) surmised that not all researchers receive proper training in how to avoid bias. In some cases, training focused on entering a specialized field might bypass larger frameworks for thinking more broadly.
Schroots (2003) further suggested that standards for vetting knowledge might not be constant across the years. In particular, focus on a concept such as MMWH by older scientists could actually be off-putting to younger scientists who might consider such concepts to be outdated.
16 TPG •
Oct.Nov.Dec 2022
www.aipg.org
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56
