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 Underdetermination of theory by evidence, as articulated by Duhem and Quine, entails that any single empirical result leaves multiple rival theories intact.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Underdetermination conflates logical possibility with practical scientific capability; we reliably eliminate theories empirically.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Cumulative evidence narrows viable alternatives significantly; true underdetermination requires infinite empirical equivalence, rarely actual.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Scientists apply parsimony and coherence constraints that select among logically viable theories, making underdetermination practically irrelevant.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Any empirical observation can be preserved with auxiliary hypothesis adjustments, preventing falsification of core theories.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Historical cases (Ptolemaic epicycles, phlogiston retention) show theories survived contradictory evidence through protective strategies.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Logic alone cannot determine which theory to reject when observation conflicts with a web of interconnected theoretical commitments.
?
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.