---

name: scientific-method description: Research methodology for hypothesis testing, evidence evaluation, and verification standards in geoscience research. Use when designing experiments, formulating hypotheses, or evaluating evidence quality. triggers:

• formulate hypothesis
• test hypothesis
• research design
• evidence evaluation
• verify finding
• scientific method location: user

---

Scientific Method for Geoscience Research

When to Use This Skill

Invoke when:

• Formulating or testing hypotheses
• Designing validation experiments
• Evaluating strength of evidence
• Deciding if a finding is confirmed vs preliminary
• Setting up controls and reproducibility checks

Core Principles

1. Evidence Hierarchy

Apply this hierarchy when evaluating claims:

2. Verification Standards

Minimum for confident claims:

• One source = coincidence (interesting but unverified)
• Two sources = clue (worth investigating)
• Three sources = verified (minimum for publication)

3. Hypothesis Formulation

Good hypotheses are:

• Falsifiable: Define what evidence would disprove it
• Specific: Include testable predictions with measurable outcomes
• Bounded: State assumptions and limitations upfront

Template:

CopyHYPOTHESIS: [Claim]
PREDICTION: If true, we should observe [specific outcome]
FALSIFICATION: If we observe [contrary evidence], hypothesis is rejected
ASSUMPTIONS: [List key assumptions]

4. Controls and Reproducibility

For each analysis, identify:

• Positive controls: Known events that SHOULD be detected
• Negative controls: Periods that SHOULD NOT show signal
• Blind tests: Analyze data without knowing expected result first

5. Uncertainty Language

Use precise language:

NEVER use: "100%", "definitely", "certainly", "must be", "proves"

6. Red Flags

Stop and reconsider if:

• Finding seems too clean/perfect
• No alternative explanations considered
• Post-hoc selection of "successful" cases
• Confirmation bias (looking for expected result)
• Circular reasoning (using conclusion as premise)

7. Breakthrough Skepticism

When you think you've made a major discovery:

1. Pause - Don't immediately declare success
2. Check arithmetic - Verify calculations independently
3. Seek alternatives - What else could explain this?
4. Consult literature - Has this been tried before?
5. Sleep on it - Fresh eyes often find flaws

Workflow for New Hypothesis

Copy1. STATE the hypothesis clearly
2. DEFINE falsification criteria
3. IDENTIFY positive/negative controls
4. GATHER data (ideally blind to expected result)
5. ANALYZE using pre-defined methods
6. EVALUATE against falsification criteria
7. DOCUMENT regardless of outcome
8. REPORT uncertainty honestly

Example: Testing Earthquake Detection

Hypothesis: Speleothem δ18O detects M6+ earthquakes within 50 km

Prediction: Known historical earthquakes should show z > 2.0 anomalies within ±10 years of event

Falsification: If >50% of known earthquakes show no anomaly, hypothesis is rejected

Positive controls: 1896 Independence M6.3 (48 km from Crystal Cave)

Negative controls: Periods with no documented seismicity

Test result: 6/6 positive controls detected → Tier 2 evidence (small n, needs replication)