The argument from stochasticity conflates classificatory underdetermination with theoretical constitution: multiple models can track the same real phenomenon without that phenomenon being model-dependent.

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

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Classificatory underdetermination(what the argument allegedly mistakes): A situation where the same real thing can be sorted or grouped in multiple different ways, making it unclear which grouping is the 'correct' one.
Conflate(the criticism being made in the statement): To mistakenly treat two different things as if they were the same thing.
Model-dependent(logic and philosophy of science): Dependent on or relative to a specific framework or set of assumptions; true or valid only within a particular model, rather than being universally true.
Phenomenon (plural: phenomena)(what multiple models can track): Something that actually exists or happens in the real world that we can observe or study.
Stochasticity(as used in science and philosophy): The quality of being random or unpredictable; when outcomes depend on chance rather than being determined by rules or patterns.
Theoretical constitution(what the argument conflates underdetermination with): The idea that something exists or is made up of whatever our theories say it is—in other words, reality depends on our models rather than existing independently.

2 topics