{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019153225806451613, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004032258064516129, 'mean_word_length': 4.841176470588235, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The challenge of critical rationalism for methodology in physical geography

are not always clear. This vagueness may be at the root of the urge shown by the less methodologically minded to reach for their soil auger when such topics are mentioned (Chorley, 1978). Accordingly, it is the purpose of this review to clarify some of the main points of contention in the hope that this will aid a more critical discussion of such topics amongst a wider circle of practitioners. In order to pursue his everyday research the geographer employs a variety of talents. In recent years many have seen fit to add ’numeracy’ to their list of skills. For those who regard themselves as ’scientists’ it would also seem appropriate that they add ’skill in methodology’ because, even by default, they adopt a particular methodology. In the same way as it is now found unacceptable that statistical techniques should be used without attention to their underlying assumptions, it seems equally undesirable that