Conclusion and Prospect

Abstract

It is perhaps only human nature that the promise of mathematical models in explaining phenomena at the Earth’s surface is all too clear to the modellers but far from clear to those who reason on more “traditional” lines. Critics of mathe-matical models are quick to point out that, owing to oversimplification and geomorphological naivety, modelling can be of little use in understanding how real landscapes develop. Büdel (1982) is sceptical of quantitative models, both field and theoretical, which attempt to understand the complex processes of relief development on the grounds that, though they may clarify some details of the processes involved, on their own they rarely contribute much to an understanding of the entire relief. He writes:

“Certainly one can measure some of the basic components of the whole process, with all-to-delusive precision, but one can hardly use this method to formulate a balanced, comprehensive picture of the highly intricate relief-forming mechanisms developing out of the specific interaction of many already complex elements”. (Büdel 1982, p. 348)

Pitty (1982, p. 54) condemns theoretical models in a string of somewhat unguarded and acerbic comments: they (theoretical models) often start with the untested assumption that land surface forms and processes may be defined in terms of the laws of physics; those based on the continuity equation tell us nothing about the surface form of the landscape; they depend on basic assumptions unacceptably simplified for workers with real world preferences; and they underestimate the role of chemistry, biology, and the complexities of underlying geology.