Allen F. Glazner
Dept. of Earth, Marine and Environmental Sciences, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina, USA, afg@unc.edu
Victor R. Baker
Dept. of Hydrology and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
John M. Bartley
Dept. of Geology and Geophysics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Kevin M. Bohacs
KMBohacs GEOconsulting LLC, Houston, Texas, USA
Drew S. Coleman
Dept. of Earth, Marine and Environmental Sciences, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina, USA
Abstract
Although the adage “the rocks don’t lie” is true—rocks are literal ground truth—their message can be
misinterpreted. More generally, it is misguided to favor one form of inquiry, such as field observation,
over others, including laboratory analyses, physical experiments, and mathematical or computational
simulations. This was recognized more than a century ago by T.C. Chamberlin, who warned against premature
adherence to a “ruling theory,” and by G.K. Gilbert, who emphasized the investigative nature of geological
reasoning. Geologic research involves a search for fruitful, coherent, and causal hypotheses that are
consistent with all the relevant evidence and tests provided by the natural world, and field observation is
perhaps the most fertile source of new geologic hypotheses. Hypotheses that are consistent with other
relevant evidence survive and are strengthened; those that conflict with relevant evidence must be either
revised or discarded.
Manuscript received 31 Jan. 2022. Revised manuscript received 11 May 2022.
Manuscript accepted 17 May 2022. Posted 9 June 2022.
© The Geological Society of America, 2022. CC-BY-NC.
https://doi.org/10.1130/GSATG535A.1