I’m reproducing this short reprise of T.C. Chamberlin’s original 1890 paper because it nicely summarizes the argument I put forward at Lisbon for several parallel lines of investigation into the causes of climate change.
H/t to Bishop Hill commenter Justice4Rinka for finding this link.
T. C. Chamberlin’s “Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses”:
An encapsulation for modern students
L. Bruce Railsback
Department of Geology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-2501 USA
Introduction
Scientific study designed to increase our knowledge of natural phenomena can follow at least three different intellectual methods. These can be called the method of the ruling theory, the method of the working hypothesis, and the method of multiple working hypotheses. The first two are the most popular but they can, and often do, lead to ineffective research that overlooks relevant data. Instead, the method of multiple working hypotheses offers a more effective way of organizing one’s research.
Ruling Theories and Working Hypotheses
Our desire to reach an interpretation or explanation commonly leads us to a tentative interpretation that is based on relatively hasty examination of a single example or case. Our tentative explanation, as such, is not a threat to objectivity, but if we then begin to trust it without further testing, we can be blinded to other possibilities that we ignored at first glance. Our premature explanation can become a tentative theory and then a ruling theory, and our research becomes focused on proving that ruling theory. The result is a blindness to evidence that disproves the ruling theory or supports an alternate explanation. Only if the original tentative hypothesis was by chance correct does our research lead to any meaningful contribution to knowledge.
Seemingly less insidious is the working hypothesis. The working hypothesis, we are told, is a hypothesis to be tested, not in order to prove the hypothesis, but as a stimulus for study and fact-finding. Nonetheless, the single working hypothesis can imperceptibly degenerate into a ruling theory, and our desire to prove the working hypothesis, despite evidence to the contrary, can become as strong as the desire to prove the ruling theory.
Multiple Working Hypotheses
The method of multiple working hypotheses involves the development, prior to our research, of several hypotheses that might explain the phenomenon we want to study. Many of these hypotheses will be contradictory, so that some, if not all, will prove to be false. However, the development of multiple hypotheses prior to the research lets us avoid the trap of the ruling hypothesis and thus makes it more likely that our research will lead to meaningful results. We open-mindedly envision all the possible explanations of the phenomenon to be studied, including the possibility that none of explanations are correct (“none of the above”) and the possibility that some new explanation may emerge.
The method of multiple working hypotheses has several other beneficial effects on one’s research. Careful study often shows that a phenomenon is the result of several causes, not just one, and the method of multiple working hypotheses obviously makes it more likely that we will see the interaction of the several causes. The method also promotes much greater thoroughness than research directed toward one hypothesis, leading to lines of inquiry that we might otherwise overlook, and thus to evidence and insights that single-minded research might never have encountered. Thirdly, the method makes us much more likely to see the imperfections in our knowledge and thus to avoid the pitfall of accepting weak or flawed evidence for one hypothesis when another provides a more elegant solution.
Possible Drawbacks of the Method
The method of multiple working hypotheses does have drawbacks. One is that it is impossible to express multiple hypotheses simultaneously, and thus there is a natural tendency to let one take primacy. Keeping a written, not mental, list of our multiple hypotheses is often a necessary solution to that problem.
Another problem is that an open mind may develop hypotheses that are so difficult to test that evaluating them is nearly impossible. An example might be where three of our hypotheses are testable by conventional field work, but a fourth requires drilling of a deep borehole beyond our economic resources. This fourth hypothesis need not paralyze our research, but it should provide a reminder that none of the first three need be true.
A third possible problem is that of vacillation or indecision as we balance the evidence for various hypotheses. Such vacillation may be bad for the researcher, but such vacillation is preferable to the premature rush to a false conclusion.
An Example
The field discovery of a breccia provides an excellent example of the application of the method of multiple working hypotheses. A breccia may form in many ways: by deposition as talus, by collapse after dissolution of underlying evaporites or other soluble rocks, by faulting, by bolide impact, or by other means. Each of the possibilities can be supported by various field evidence, for which we could look if we were evaluating all these hypotheses. However, if we chose just one hypothesis, we might ignore other evidence more clearly supportive of a different hypothesis. For example, if we hypothesized that our breccia was the result of cataclasis during faulting, we might find that the breccia occurred along a fault. We would then accept our single hypothesis and quit looking for additional information. However, if we were using multiple working hypotheses and looked for evidence supporting or disproving all our hypotheses, we might also notice that the breccia was localized in a circular pattern along just one part of the fault. Further examination might show that it was accompanied by shatter cones. Armed with this additional information, we would be more inclined to an interpretation involving an impact that was by chance coincident with a fault. By looking for evidence supportive of a variety of hypotheses, we would have avoided an incorrect interpretation based on coincidence.
Summary
In using the method of multiple working hypotheses, we try to open-mindedly envision and list all the possible hypotheses that could account for the phenomenon to be studied. This induces greater care in ascertaining the facts and greater discrimination and caution in drawing conclusions. Although our human tendencies lead us toward the method of the ruling theory, the method of multiple working hypotheses offers the best chance of open-minded research that avoids false conclusions.
T.C. Chamberlin and the method of multiple working hypotheses
The geologist Thomas Chrowder Chamberlin (1843-1928) was president of the University of Wisconsin, director of the Walker Museum at the University of Chicago, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the founder and editor of the Journal of Geology.
Chamberlin read his paper on “The method of multiple working hypotheses” before the Society of Western Naturalists in 1889, and it was published in Science in 1890 and the Journal of Geology in 1897. It was reprinted in several journals during the subsequent seventy years.
This is a short modern encapsulation of some of the ideas in Chamberlin’s original paper, and it should not be considered an adequate substitute for the original paper. This encapsulation is based on a version of the original paper republished in Science in 1965.
Chamberlin, T.C., 1890, The method of multiple working hypotheses: Science (old series) v. 15, p. 92-96; reprinted 1965, v. 148, p. 754-759.
Chamberlin, T.C., 1897, The method of multiple working hypotheses: Journal of Geology, v. 5, p. 837-848.
To a web-based copy of Chamberlin’s paper (apparently from the 1965 reprint)
L. Bruce Railsback’s original webpage is here.
Download a pdf of the original Chamberlin paper here
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Tallbloke,
Thank you for this post. A recognition that one or more hypotheses could be involved in the final explanation is practical. It would be especially valuable in an assessment of current science, such as AR5. It would be convenient to have all of the major hypotheses laid out in one place along with supporting evidence for each. But I don’t expect AR5 will look like that at all.
Even when there is a recognition of multiple hypotheses, it is not likely an individual researcher will pursue more than one at a time. But different researchers should be exploring different ideas. This is beginning to happen more, but the funding for some of the research is not as easy to come by.
Keep up the good work!
Tallbloke,
In order to understand the interactions of the sun and planet, you have to have multiple working hypothesis. Anything else fail due to the singularity(like the current CO2 theory).
Current scince is ALL based on singularity hypothese that do not interact well at all.
Hi Ron and Thanks.
I think the answer is to put the IPCC lead authors on piece rate. The more hypotheses they consider, the more they get paid. In my salary scheme they’d soon have enough to eat regularly. 🙂
Of course these recommendations about using multiple hypotheses IS a hypothesis about the best way to conduct science. And so one can ask how effective the multiple hypothesis approach is. I think the record will show that multiple hypotheses may be present in the “early” stages of a science but are quickly winnowed down. Further that path has proved successful.
more to the point:
“Another problem is that an open mind may develop hypotheses that are so difficult to test that evaluating them is nearly impossible. An example might be where three of our hypotheses are testable by conventional field work, but a fourth requires drilling of a deep borehole beyond our economic resources. This fourth hypothesis need not paralyze our research, but it should provide a reminder that none of the first three need be true.”
As you will recall tallbloke the issue of the vast collection of “alternative” theories was raised at the conference. One solution that was offerred was to have skeptics filter (remember that word) their theories and come forward with the best. You will recall that the group would not even agree to that. They wanted every theory considered, regardless of its merits or the resources required. Nobody is preventing you or others from coming up with an alternate theory. but that theory must explain everything the current theory does with equal or better precision. Things like OHC, air temp, preciptation, reaction to volcanoes erupting, pressure fields, oceanic cycles, ice melt, drought, flood, impact from land use change.. Lots. This is not to say that a GCM (which IS a theory) gets all of this right. they don’t. But to challenge them you need to have
1. Similar scope (predict the same things)
2. Similar hindcast skill
3. Similar or better prediction skill.
Otherwise your alternative theory really cant compete. That means that people looking for answers will use their time wisely ( based on the current science) and they will try to refine the existing theory rather than throwing it out for a theory that is less well described and limited in scope. That’s the right thing to do.
Hi Steve, thanks for engaging.
Nobody is preventing you or others from coming up with an alternate theory. but that theory must explain everything the current theory does with equal or better precision.
A lot of the apparent precision in the current theory is false. It has been achieved by careful juggling and adjustment of the facts over twenty years. Data has been bent to fit the theory, and uncertainty has been swept under the rug to make the level of certainty appear certain.
you need to have
1. Similar scope (predict the same things)
2. Similar hindcast skill
3. Similar or better prediction skill.
Give me a tiny fraction of the funding that the dominant theory has greedily kept to itself for two decades, and I can supply those things for you.
people looking for answers will use their time wisely ( based on the current science) and they will try to refine the existing theory rather than throwing it out
I’m not asking them to throw it out. I’m asking them to permit alternative theories to not be starved of development funds, and to be prepared to listen and discuss rationally.
My approach is in recommending the funding of separate teams working on different hypotheses who all contribute to the overall process of trying to understand climate by regularly participating in a forum which formalises the process of listening to other team’s stuff, and discussing it in a non-violent way. It showed signs of working at Lisbon, though some scientists, who by their nature tend to be somewhat solitary so they can concentrate on their science, could do with some coaching in interpersonal skills. 😉
This is not insurmountable. It’s clear that several factors control climate. It the most interesting interdisciplinary puzzle ever tackled by science. We just need to get groups of scientists who are working on disparate aspects of the problem to talk to each other without biting each others heads off and trying to make the climate factor they are investigating King Theory of the castle.
Maybe the “rapporteur” idea could be used. Since scientists are too busy doing science to develop the interpersonal skills required to listen to and discuss hypotheses they disagree with, or which are inimical to their own hypothesis, an intelligent layman who can thoroughly grasp the hypothesis could act as rapporteur at meetings with other rapporteurs from other teams. He/she could then report back to their own team and new findings from elsewhere could be taken into account.
This might lead to a convergence which correctly assesses the relative strength of the various climate factors at different epochs.
a GCM (which IS a theory)
No it isn’t. It’s a computer model which has failed every test against reality it’s been put to. Hypotheses don’t get to be theories in long trousers until they’ve made successful testable predictions. GCM’s so far? FAIL.
One solution that was offerred was to have skeptics filter (remember that word) their theories and come forward with the best. You will recall that the group would not even agree to that.
It’s not my place to decide which alternative hypotheses are worth pursuing. We need a forum where the best can be selected for first round inclusion. Since insufficient time was given at Lisbon to discussing this, I would say this is a good topic for the next meeting, since it doesn’t really require the big hitters from the dominant hypothesis group to attend anyway.
This is a very practical method. In the 1980’s, American industry was surprised by the quality of Japanese products. The company that I worked for initiated a training program in the Japanese methods. A team approach was used and all of the stakeholders were included. This included shop workers, engineers, suppliers and customers, to name a few. The first thing that was done, once a problem was identified, was to brainstorm possible causes–not solutions. All ideas were accepted and no criticism of other’s ideas was allowed. Then data was collected and other methods were used to investigate all of the ideas.
Compared to these methodologies, the scientific method seems archaic. A process called “Design of Experiments” is designed to test a multitude of theories. In proposing only one idea, there is a danger of the results being biased towards a single solution.
The formation of braccia is a very good example. Sometimes the answer is all of the above. 😉 pg
[edit] reposted on the light bending thread