Skip to content

Topics Thinkers Changes ContributorsLoading account…

Carmelics

A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

Navigate

Topics
Search
Recent Changes
Contribute
How It Works
Glossary
Thinkers
Contributors
About
Statistics
Terms
Privacy

Database

Statements: —
Perspectives: —
Topics: —

Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

Made within

DC&

Austin

One can never be warranted in believing any particular hy... — Carmelics

Statements: 321,452
Perspectives: 108,905
Topics: 42

Home/Skepticism

History Edit See Inverse

One can never be warranted in believing any particular hypothesis when multiple empirically equivalent hypotheses exist

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

2 reasons against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

?

1.A number of hypotheses are empirically equivalent
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Empirical equivalence means that any evidence we might ever possess is unable to favor one hypothesis over the others
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reasons Against

2 perspectives

Reason against 1 of 2

?

1.Non-empirical theoretical virtues like simplicity, coherence, and explanatory power constitute genuine epistemic grounds for hypothesis selection.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Inference to the best explanation is a legitimate warrant-conferring practice even when competing hypotheses are empirically equivalent.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.A hypothesis that maximizes theoretical virtues over rivals earns epistemic warrant that is not undermined by mere empirical equivalence.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reason against 2 of 2

?

1.Empirical equivalence is typically established only relative to a bounded set of possible evidence, not all logically possible evidence.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Quine's own holism implies that auxiliary assumptions can always be revised to break apparent empirical equivalences between rival theories.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

Next step

Based on where you are in your exploration

Strongest counterpoint

Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

Topics

Skepticism Truth & Knowledge

Related

A hypothesis that maximizes theoretical virtues over rivals earns epistemic warr...A number of hypotheses are empirically equivalent Empirical equivalence is typically established only relative to a bounded set of...Empirical equivalence means that any evidence we might ever possess is unable to...

+3 moreShow less

Inference to the best explanation is a legitimate warrant-conferring practice ev...Non-empirical theoretical virtues like simplicity, coherence, and explanatory po...Quine's own holism implies that auxiliary assumptions can always be revised to b...

Similar

A number of hypotheses are empirically equivalent81%Empirical equivalence means evidence cannot favor one hypothesis over ...81%Evidence alone cannot always suffice to distinguish among some alterna...80%We are never warranted in choosing between empirically equivalent riva...80%

Source

AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid

View source passageHide passage

Last but not least, abduction plays a central role in some important philosophical debates. See Shalkowski 2010 on the place of abduction in metaphysics (also Bigelow 2010), Krzyżanowska, Wenmackers, and Douven 2014 and Douven 2016a for a possible role of abduction in the semantics of conditionals, and Williamson 2017 for an application of abduction in the philosophy of logic. Arguably, however, abduction plays its most notable philosophical role in epistemology and in the philosophy of science,

Extraction notes

Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

Details

Type: claim
Perspectives: 3 (1 for, 2 against)
Edits: 1 edit