Chapter 16 - Geomorphology, Geography, and Science Bernard 0

382 SCIENTIFIC NATURE OF GEOMORPHOLOGY
in: (1) an increasing number of subspecializations in geomorphology beyond the
traditional cores; (2) an increasing number of methodological and philosophical
perspectives being brought to bear on geomorphic problems; (3) an increasing concern
with the integrity of geomorphological claims to knowledge, especially those that assume
scientific postures; and (4) an increasing appreciation for the necessity of utilitarian
research, especially in the face of inexorable alteration of earth's surface by the profound
activity of humans, and for the express purpose of ensuring disciplinary survival by
demonstrating contemporary relevance. In these contexts, geography serves to inform and
heighten geomorphology's awareness of the physical, intellectual, and social pulses of the
world around us.
OBJECTIVES AND CAVEATS
The original objective of this chapter was to provide an evaluation and elucidation of 'the
ways in which geographic theory and methods have influenced or are currently
influencing the development of geomorphology as a science' (Rhoads and Thorn, personal
communication). Such an undertaking turns out to be unrealistic for several reasons. First,
it accepts, a priori, the existence of theories and methods that are distinctly geographical,
their readily identifiable character, their acceptance and use by the geographic community,
and their transplantation into the geomorphological corpus. Many have taken exception to
such assertions, and Schaefer (1953, p. 227), for one, contends that the '. . . existence of a
field ... needs no "methodological" justification'. Yatsu (1992, p. 92) concurs and suggests
that 'for the development of scientific knowledge, researchers must use any method
available'. Although certain disciplines might easily be characterized on the basis of
distinctive theories and methods (e.g. mathematics or engineering), this is neither a
necessary nor sufficient condition. Geography, in particular, encompasses a broad
spectrum of theories and methods, many of which have evolved in association with
developments in other disciplines, and thus, the donor-recipient relationships are not
evident.
Second, it implicitly assumes that there is widespread agreement as to the meaning and
implications of 'science', that geomorphology is considered to be a science by the broader
community of academics, and that we, as geomorphologists, find it desirable for
geomorphology to be(come) scientific. These issues are at the very core of
geomorphology, and one need only scan the recent geomorphological and geographical
literature to get a sense of the prevailing confusion and ambiguity surrounding them (e.g.
Richards 1990, 1994; Baker and Twidale 1991; Yatsu 1992; Rhoads and Thorn 1993,
1994; Bassett 1994; Rhoads 1994). Ontological and epistemological concerns are central
to these debates but are ordinarily the domain of the philosopher or historian of science.
Are geomorphologists prepared to engage these debates or will they reach, once again, for
the soil auger (cf. Chorley 1978)?
Third, it is inherently confrontational because it is tantamount to geographical representation
in the 'Championship of the Disciplines' (i.e. disciplines most influential to the
development of geomorphology). In such endeavors it is often convenient and effective to
place in opposition the merits of one discipline against those of another. Supporting
arguments and expositions are often based on extremist, opinionated, historically super-