Is as useful as the scientific method when it comes to field sciences. And the MER's are "field scientists".
With the idea of MWH, you can take an observation and plug it into models and see if it fits. If it doesn't fit available models, then another may have to added to the list. Since "proof" is often difficult in field sciences, (given limited evidence, temporal scale problems, limits of access, etc.) one favors the model that fits the evidence the best and is the most predictive. And yes, this can get difficult, as more than one model can be consistant with the evidence and be predictive.
Hopefully, after careful research and interpretation, one model comes to the front. But it takes time.
Some quick links:
T. C. Chamberlin's "Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses": An encapsulation for modern students
The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses from a reprint of Chamberlin's orginal article.
Space/Science » in reply to re: The question is, why accept the 'dogma' of
The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses
The whole thread (21 posts)
- Fossil Martian Bacteria or Algae
- Mineral formation
- re: Fossil Martian Bacteria or Algae
- re: The simple explanation