Multiple Working Hypotheses and Equifinality in Geomorphology: Comments on the

Recent Article by Haines-Young and Petch

Author(s): A. J. Gerrard
Source: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Vol. 9, No. 3 (1984), pp. 364-
366
Published by: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/622239
Accessed: 10-05-2017 21:38 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/622239?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) is collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers

This content downloaded from 143.107.46.138 on Wed, 10 May 2017 21:38:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Multiple working hypotheses and
equifinality in geomorphology:
comments on the recent article by
Haines-Young and Petch
A.J. GERRARD
Lecturer in Geography, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT

MS received 20 April 1984

Haines-Young and Petch, in a series of articles, have done geomorphology a great service by
initiating debate on the methodological and philosophical issues involved in seeking explanations
in geomorphology (Haines-Young and Petch, 1980, 1981, 1983). Although I am in general
agreement with the basic points raised in their recent article in Transactions I believe there are
a number of specific points that need clarification.
There is no doubt that overt use of the method of multiple working hypotheses
(Chamberlin, 1897; Gilbert, 1886; Johnson, 1933) or the critical rationalist approach in the
geomorphological literature is limited. However, as Mackin (1963) has suggested in geology,
for many workers the method has become a habit of thought and is not always spelt out when
presenting the results of particular investigations.
The aim of geomorphology should be explanation, and the basic tenet of Haines-Young
and Petch is that acceptance of the principle of equifinality hinders progress towards satisfactory
explanations. The issue clearly hinges on how rigorous the term equifinality is applied and I
suspect that Haines-Young and Petch are applying the concept more strictly than many users
of the term intended. However, this in itself says something about the methodological rigour
of the subject. At its simplest level, the notion of equifinality stops the researcher being
complacent as it recognizes the fact that interpretation might be open to doubt. The fear that
equifinality is accepted without exhaustive testing is probably unfounded and there is no doubt
that it should be accepted as a last resort when all other possibilities are exhausted. The notion
of equifinality does not negate the conventions normally employed to develop theories.
Much of geomorphological explanation stops short of the universality of explanation sought
by Haines-Young and Petch and I would disagree that if one abandons the search for a single
universal hypothesis then one has lost any chance of improving ideas of how landforms develop.
Although an explanation is an answer to the question 'why?' as Nagel (1961) and Simpson
(1963) have stressed, this is an ambiguous question calling for different kinds of answers in
various contexts and can be broken down into three others. 'How?' is the typical question of
the non-historical scientist and is answered in terms of physical and chemical processes. Answers
to this question can be expressed ultimately in the form of laws embodying invariable relation-
ships among variables. Thus the explanation by Graf (1979), cited by Haines-Young and Petch,
that arroyos are created when the tractive force in channels exceeds threshold values of resistance
in valley floors, is an answer to the question 'how?' But geomorphology would be a less
Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. N.S. 9:364-366 (1984) ISSN 0020-2754 Printed in Great Britain

This content downloaded from 143.107.46.138 on Wed, 10 May 2017 21:38:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Multiple working hypotheses and equifinality: Comments 365
interesting subject if explanation was left at this level. Geomorphologists are also interested in a
second type of question-namely, 'how come?' A full explanation is reached only by a
combination of what Simpson (1963) has called configurational changes with the immanent
properties and processes present within and involved in those changes. One does not explain
arroyo formation by either describing the general factors in the landscape or by listing the
physical laws involved, but by a combination of the two. The geomorphologist is faced with the
same problem as the geologist in that, on the one hand, he is concerned with what happened
once at a certain place and is also concerned with the typical that finds expression in
generalizations. The final question, 'what for?' is inappropriate in the physical sciences.
The problem which many geomorphologists face is the length of time involved in the form-
ation of the features they are studying. The longer the time period the greater the chance
of complications occurring in the causal chain with both positive and negative feedback
mechanisms. This situation has been stated very explicitly by Bemmelen (1961, p. 458):

... matter reacted upon matter in an infinite number of combinations in such a way that
ultimately new possibilities and new factors originated, so-called 'emergent phenomena'.
The latter cannot straight away be explained by the natural laws of the basic sciences...

The principal difference between geomorphology and geology and the other physical sciences
is the fact geomorphology and geology not only must explain the contemporary situation by
means of contemporary phenomena but they must also observe and suggest a genesis; a process
which takes place in time.
Much of the argument of Haines-Young and Petch centres on the definition of fundamen-
tally different causes and is characterized by the same problems that philosophers of science
have experienced when debating the reduction of theories and whether a secondary science can
be reduced to a more embracing one. Much of geomorphology can be reduced to the principles
and laws of thermodynamics, but it is debatable if much is to be gained by this move. As Nagel
(1961, p. 362) has stated:

little, if any new knowledge or increased power for significant research may actually be
gained from reducing one science to another at certain periods of their development.

Thus, although one science may be reducible to another all-embracing science, the secondary
discipline may be solving its own special class of problems with the help of theory devised
especially for dealing with the subject matter of that discipline. This would seem to be true
of geomorphology. Whether a combination of configurational changes with immanent properties
and processes will produce what Haines-Young and Petch call fundamentally different causes
(their italics) is unclear, but it is likely they will produce different causes. Also, the question
of defining a geomorphological process is not tackled. This is an extremely important issue when
trying to establish different causes.
Many of these points can be clarified briefly by discussing the origins of tors. Tors have
often been used as a classic example of equifinality or convergence of form. But there is no
doubt that, in some instances, equifinality, as a concept, has been used incorrectly because an
understanding of the processes involved has been deficient and because apparently similar forms
are really different. Thus, Dartmoor tors have been attributed to the single or combined effect
of hydrothermal alteration of the granite, past chemical and physical weathering, pedimentation
and presently acting processes. In other areas in the British Isles, glacial action may be respon-
sible for some tors. Much of the confusion has arisen because the tors in question have been

This content downloaded from 143.107.46.138 on Wed, 10 May 2017 21:38:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 366 A. J. GERRARD
assumed to be similar whereas detailed invest
and may reflect diverse causes (Gerrard, 1
The length of time involved in tor formati
in environmental conditions with a changing
Herein lies perhaps the most important pr
in terms of fundamentally different caus
processes guided by the differing degrees of
Tors will be formed where the rock is mor
been created by the same mechanisms and
this a suitable explanation?
The aim of moving towards definitions
of tors has been fraught with problems. A
the extent that the hypotheses are shown to
descriptive terms (Baulig, 1938). However,
definition (Bridgman, 1927), which has no
It may well be that tors are examples of eq
the view that, in the case of tors, the use of
in an ad hoc and uncritical way. However,
a closer look at the specific concepts of eq
aspects of geomorphological methodology. An
to the wholesome intellectual life of our s
to geology but it is equally relevant to geom

REFERENCES

BAULIG, H. (1938) 'Questions de terminologid. I--Consdquent, subsequent, obsdquent; ou cataclinal, monoclinal, a

J Geomorph. 1: 224-9
BEMMELEN, R. W. VAN (1961) 'The scientific character of geology', J. Geol. 69: 453-61
BRIDGMAN, P. W. (1927) The logic ofmodern physics (New York)
CHAMBERLIN, T. C. (1897) 'The method of multiple working hypotheses', J. Geol. 5: 837-48
CHAMBERLIN, T. C. (1904) 'The methods of the earth-sciences', Popular Sci. Mon. 66: 66-75
GERRARD, A. J. (1978) 'Tors and granite landforms of Dartmoor and eastern Bodmin Moor', Proc. Ussher Soc. 4: 204
GILBERT, G. K. (1886) 'The inculcation of the scientific method by example, with an illustration drawn from
geology of Utah', Am. . Sci. 31: 284-09
GRAF, W. L. (1979) 'The development of montane arroyos and gullies', Earth Surf Proc. 4:1-14
HAINES-YOUNG, R. H. and PETCH, J. R. (1980) 'The challenge of critical rationalism for progress in physical
Phys. Geogr. 4: 62-77
HAINES-YOUNG, R. H. and PETCH, J. R. (1981) 'Causal and functional relationships in geomorphology: a r
Proc. 6: 207-9
HAINES-YOUNG, R. H. and PETCH, J. R. (1983) 'Multiple working hypothesis: Equifinality and the study of landforms', Trans.
Inst. Br. Geogr. N.S.8: 458-66
JOHNSON, D. (1933) 'Role of analysis in scientific investigation', Bull. geol. Soc. Am. 44: 461-94
MACKIN, J. H. (1963) 'Rational and empirical methods of investigation in geology' in ALBRITTON, JR C. C. (ed.) The fabric
ofgeology (Reading, Mass.) 135-63
NAGEL, E. (1961) The structure ofscience (New York)
SIMPSON, G. G. (1963) 'Historical science', in ALBRITTON, JR. C. C. (ed.) The fabric ofgeology (Reading, Mass.) 24-48

This content downloaded from 143.107.46.138 on Wed, 10 May 2017 21:38:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms