Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading 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

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    There is no evidential reason to prefer one such theory o... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The choice of which theory to believe is underdetermined by the data

    There is no evidential reason to prefer one such theory over another

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

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Conflicting theories share all observable consequences (the data)The choice of which theory to believe is underdetermined by the dataThe theories differ precisely in what they say about the unobservable

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    There is no evidential reason to believe one theory as opposed to anot...89%A theory that is an extension of another theory has more ways of being...78%Empirical equivalence means evidence cannot favor one such theory over...77%A theory with more specific claims is intrinsically less probable than...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: scientific-realism
    View source passageHide passage
    How then does this give rise to underdetermination, a presumptive concern for realism? The argument from underdetermination proceeds as follows: let us call the relevant, overall sets of scientific beliefs “theories”; different, conflicting theories are consistent with the data; the data exhaust the evidence for belief; therefore, there is no evidential reason to believe one of these theories as opposed to another. Given that the theories differ precisely in what they say about the unobservable

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective