>I would agree that any theory is better off with multiple working
>hypotheses. This is what we do at oil companies. Each interpretor or each
>company will have their own set of explanations which then compete in the
>finding of oil and gas. That does not mean that oil and gas science is in
>crisis. Neither does the multiple hypotheses of evolution indicate that
>evolution is in crisis.
True enough. Multiple working hypotheses is, in theory, the best way to do
science. It is also a methodology that is (almost) never used in science,
because it is too difficult (finding oil may be another matter!). But do
not mistake the proliferation of hypotheses for the use of multiple working
hypotheses. In evolutionary "science", the case is definitely not the use
of mutliple working hypotheses. Each theory has its adherents and
detractors. None of the participants is using the methodology of multiple
working hypotheses, so far as I can detect..
Art
http://geology.swau.edu