majiayu000 Scientific Method for Geoscience Research
When to Use This Skill
Invoke when:
- Formulating or testing hypotheses
- Designing validation experiments
- Evaluating strength of evidence
- Deciding if a finding is confirmed vs preliminary
- Setting up controls and reproducibility checks
Core Principles
1. Evidence Hierarchy
Apply this hierarchy when evaluating claims:
| Level | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | Multi-proxy validation | δ18O + Mg/Ca + δ13C all show signal |
| Tier 2 | Two independent lines | δ18O + historical documentation |
| Tier 3 | Single proxy | Only δ18O shows anomaly |
2. Verification Standards
Minimum for confident claims:
- One source = coincidence (interesting but unverified)
- Two sources = clue (worth investigating)
- Three sources = verified (minimum for publication)
3. Hypothesis Formulation
Good hypotheses are:
- Falsifiable: Define what evidence would disprove it
- Specific: Include testable predictions with measurable outcomes
- Bounded: State assumptions and limitations upfront
Template:
HYPOTHESIS: [Claim]
PREDICTION: If true, we should observe [specific outcome]
FALSIFICATION: If we observe [contrary evidence], hypothesis is rejected
ASSUMPTIONS: [List key assumptions]
4. Controls and Reproducibility
For each analysis, identify:
- Positive controls: Known events that SHOULD be detected
- Negative controls: Periods that SHOULD NOT show signal
- Blind tests: Analyze data without knowing expected result first
5. Uncertainty Language
Use precise language:
| Term | Meaning | When to Use |
|---|---|---|
| "proposed" | Unconfirmed hypothesis | Single line of evidence |
| "likely" | Probable (2+ sources) | Two independent confirmations |
| "confirmed" | Multi-proxy validated | Three+ independent lines |
| "suggests" | Indicates direction | Preliminary interpretation |
| "consistent with" | Doesn't contradict | Supportive but not proof |
NEVER use: "100%", "definitely", "certainly", "must be", "proves"
6. Red Flags
Stop and reconsider if:
- Finding seems too clean/perfect
- No alternative explanations considered
- Post-hoc selection of "successful" cases
- Confirmation bias (looking for expected result)
- Circular reasoning (using conclusion as premise)
7. Breakthrough Skepticism
When you think you've made a major discovery:
- Pause - Don't immediately declare success
- Check arithmetic - Verify calculations independently
- Seek alternatives - What else could explain this?
- Consult literature - Has this been tried before?
- Sleep on it - Fresh eyes often find flaws
Workflow for New Hypothesis
1. STATE the hypothesis clearly
2. DEFINE falsification criteria
3. IDENTIFY positive/negative controls
4. GATHER data (ideally blind to expected result)
5. ANALYZE using pre-defined methods
6. EVALUATE against falsification criteria
7. DOCUMENT regardless of outcome
8. REPORT uncertainty honestly
Example: Testing Earthquake Detection
Hypothesis: Speleothem δ18O detects M6+ earthquakes within 50 km
Prediction: Known historical earthquakes should show z > 2.0 anomalies within ±10 years of event
Falsification: If >50% of known earthquakes show no anomaly, hypothesis is rejected
Positive controls: 1896 Independence M6.3 (48 km from Crystal Cave)
Negative controls: Periods with no documented seismicity
Test result: 6/6 positive controls detected → Tier 2 evidence (small n, needs replication)