METHODS OF THE EARTH-SCIENCES. 6 9 



It is safe to say, however, that under this method, with all its 

 defects, many facts will be gathered that an observer of colorless atti- 

 tude would have quite overlooked. The reverse may doubtless also be 

 said. An effort to avoid the dangers at once of the colorless Scylla and 

 the biasing Charybdis gave rise to 



The Method of the Working Hypothesis. 



This may be regarded as the distinctive feature of the methodology 

 of the last century. This differs from the method of the ruling theory 

 in that the working hypothesis is made a means of determining facts, 

 not primarily a thesis to be established. Its chief function is the 

 suggestion and guidance of lines of inquiry; inquiry not for the sake 

 of the hypothesis, but for the sake of the facts and their final elucida- 

 tion. The hypothesis is a mode rather than an end. Under the rul- 

 ing theory, the stimulus is directed to the finding of facts for the sup- 

 port of the theory. Under the working hypothesis, the facts are 

 sought for the purpose of ultimate induction and demonstration, the 

 hypothesis being but a means for the more ready development of facts 

 and their relations, particularly their relations. 



It will be seen that the distinction is somewhat subtile. It is 

 rarely if ever perfectly sustained. A working hypothesis may glide 

 with the utmost ease into a ruling theory. Affection may as easily 

 cling about a beloved intellectual child under the name of a working 

 hypothesis as under any other, and may become a ruling passion. The 

 moral atmosphere associated with the working hypothesis, however, 

 lends some good influence toward the preservation of its integrity. 

 The author of a working hypothesis is not presumed to father or de- 

 fend it, but merely to use it for what it is worth. 



Conscientiously followed, the method of the working hypothesis is 

 an incalculable advance upon the method of the ruling theory, as it is 

 also upon the method of colorless observation ; but it also has serious 

 defects. As already implied, it is not an adequate protection against 

 a biased attitude. Even if it avoids this, it tends to narrow the scope 

 of inquiry and direct it solely along the lines of the hypothesis. It 

 undoubtedly gives acuteness, incisiveness and thoroughness in its own 

 lines, but it inevitably turns inquiry away from other lines. It has 

 dangers therefore akin to its predecessor, the ruling theory. 



A remedy for these dangers and defects has been sought in 



The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses.'* 



This differs from the method of the simple working hypothesis in 



that it distributes the effort and divides the affections. It is thus in 



some measure protected against the radical defects of the two previous 



methods. The effort is to bring up into distinct view every rational 



explanation of the phenomenon in hand and to develop into working 



* In this sketch I have drawn freely upon my paper on ' The Method of 

 Multiple Working Hypotheses,' Journ. Geol., V., 1897. 



