Skip to main content
Log in

Explaining the Past in the Geosciences

  • Published:
Philosophia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Abductive reasoning is central to reconstructing the past in the geosciences. This paper outlines the nature of the abductive method and restates it in Bayesian terms. Evidence plays a key role in this working method and, in particular, traces of the past are important in this explanatory framework. Traces, whether singularly or as groups, are interpreted within the context of the event for which they have evidential claims. Traces are not considered as independent entities but rather as inter-related pieces of information concerning the likelihood of specific events. Exemplification of the use of such traces is provided by dissecting an example of their use in the environmental reconstruction of mountain climate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alvarez, L. W., Alvarez, W., Asaro, F., & Michel, H. V. (1980). Extraterrestrial cause for the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction. Science, 208, 1095–1108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, V. R. (1999). Geosemiosis. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 111, 633–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlin, T. C. (1890). The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science, XV, 92–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleland, C. E. (2001). Historical science, experimental science and the scientific method. Geology, 29, 987–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frodeman, R. L. (1995). Geological reasoning: Geology as an interpretative and historical science. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 107, 960–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, N. (1958). The test of simplicity. Science, 128, 1064–1068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, N. (1967). Uniformity and simplicity. (In Uniformity and simplicity, Special Paper, Geological Society of America, 89, (pp93–99)).

  • Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what?. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young, R. H., & Petch, J. (1986). Physical geography: Its nature and methods. London: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D. (1969). Explanation in geography. London: Edward Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howie, D. (2002). Bayesian controversy in context, 1919–1939. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inkpen, R. J. (2005). Science, philosophy and physical geography. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, D. (1933). Role of analysis in scientific investigations. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 44, 461–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, S. N. (2001). Constructive comments on D. Massey ‘Space–time, “science” and the relationship between physical geography and human geography’. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 26, 243–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, S. N., & Richards, K. S. (1997). Linking river channel form and process: Time, space and causality revisited. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 22, 249–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leighton, J. A. (1904). The logic of history. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 1, 42–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzucchi, D., Spooner, I. S., Gilbert, R., & Osborn, G. (2003). Reconstruction of Holocene climate change using multiproxy analysis of sediments from Pyramid Lake, British Columbia, Canada. Arctic, Antarctic and Alpine Research, 35, 520–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearl, J. (2000). Causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoads, B. L. (2006). The dynamic basis of geomorphology reenvisioned. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96, 14–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhoads, B. L., & Thorn, C. E. (1993). Geomorphology as a science: The role of theory. Geomorphology, 6, 287–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhoads, B. L., & Thorn, C. E. (1994). Contemporary philosophical perspectives on physical geography with emphasis on geomorphology. Geographical Review, 84, 90–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhoads, B. L. & Thorn, C. E. (Eds.) (1996). The scientific nature of geomorphology. Chichester: Wiley.

  • Richards, K. S. (1990). ‘Real’ geomorphology. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 15, 195–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rickert, H. (1986). The limits of concept formation in natural science: A logical introduction to the historical sciences. (Translated by Oakes, G.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

  • Simpson, G. G. (1963). Historical science. In C. C. Albritton Jr. (Ed.), The fabric of geology (pp. 24–48). Stanford: Freeman and Cooper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, A. (1998). Uniqueness: The underdetermination of explanation. Erkenntnis, 48, 59–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, A. (2004a). Our knowledge of the past: A philosophy of histrography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, A. (2004b). Holistic explanation of events. Philosophy, 79, 573–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Engelhardt, W., & Zimmerman, J. (1988). Theory of earth science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert John Inkpen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Inkpen, R.J. Explaining the Past in the Geosciences. Philosophia 36, 495–507 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-008-9124-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-008-9124-x

Keywords

Navigation