عنوان مقاله [English]
With the development of new science, two quite different methods were applied to reach scientific explanation. There is an explicit distinction between these two methods (induction and analogy). In induction, generalization is reached by experience and observation. Final explanation is generally dependent on the available data, in a way that these facts cannot be separated from the final theory.
Classification is a key mechanism in this approach. Thus, the proposed explanation depends on the classification method used and also on the available data and concepts used for data classification. Analogy can be considered a cause for the new research trends in geomorphology. By using analogy to explain research topics, geomorphology has become explicitly “scientific”. This requires adaptation of quantitative and mathematical techniques and establishing experience and observation as foundations of this science. With the beginning of quantitative geomorphology and its development, attention to the explanation of geomorphological processes and the performance of such processes have increased. Using theory of systems as the general structure of explanation is an important feature of scientific geomorphological revolution. Systematic approach presents the general structures in which geomorphological models can be adapted. Chorli (1966) explains the main branches of geomorphological activities as follows: field observations, experimental, secondary research and theoretical works.