Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If two models agree only because both fit underdetermined evidence, their agreement provides no additional explanatory or predictive warrant.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Agreement between models can indicate they share underlying mechanisms or principles, even if evidence underdetermines specific details.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Models fitting the same underdetermined data through different methods may converge on empirically equivalent but ontologically robust structures.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Pragmatically, convergence increases confidence for prediction/action regardless of warrant's formal justification status; agreement has instrumental value.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Agreement by chance alone (both fitting underdetermined data) cannot distinguish between lucky coincidence and genuine insight about reality.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Underdetermined evidence permits infinitely many models; their agreement tells us only about evidence limitations, not model superiority.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Predictive warrant requires models to constrain future observations; underdetermined agreement provides no new constraints beyond the evidence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.