Search

Some geological phenomena are explained by geological processes that have never been witnessed. There may also be processes that leave (or have left) no traces at all, or the traces of which have not been recognized as such. Yet, science requires that ideas about such ‘secret’ processes are communicated with the earth-science community. If such ideas are launched without providing a possible method to check their correctness, they are commonly called speculations. If potential methods for validation are presented, some earth scientists call them hypotheses. These are considered more valuable than speculations, although experiments to support such hypotheses cannot always be carried out in a satisfactory way. If an apparently logical order of causes and consequences is presented, accompanied by physical or mathematical data to support the supposed sequence of events, the term ‘model’ is commonly applied. Models are considered superior to hypotheses, although the validity of models is often questionable.It is shown that speculations, hypotheses and models do not differ fundamentally from each other, so that there is no reason for the scientific community to treat them in different ways. The commonly negative attitude towards speculations is not justified and hampers scientific progress. An example of a hypothesis on a process never observed is presented to indicate how small—if existing at all—the margins are between models, hypotheses and speculations. It is concluded that both hypotheses and speculations may trigger research that will deepen insight into complex earth-scientific relationships. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]