Refusing the Devil's Bargain: What Kind of Underdetermination Should We Take Seriously?
Citations Over Time
Abstract
Advocates have sought to prove that underdetermination obtains because all theories have empirical equivalents. But algorithms for generating empirical equivalents simply exchange underdetermination for familiar philosophical chestnuts, while the few convincing examples of empirical equivalents will not support the desired sweeping conclusions. Nonetheless, underdetermination does not depend on empirical equivalents: our warrant for current theories is equally undermined by presently unconceived alternatives as well-confirmed merely by the existing evidence, so long as this transient predicament recurs for each theory and body of evidence we consider. The historical record supports the claim that this recurrent, transient underdetermination predicament is our own.
Related Papers
- → Underdetermination, Holism and the Theory/Data Distinction(2002)59 cited
- → Why warrant transmits across epistemological disjunctivist Moorean-style arguments(2016)15 cited
- → Duhem–Quine virtue epistemology(2011)17 cited
- → Epistemic Virtues and the Success of Science(2014)5 cited
- Are Quine’s Two Indeterminacy Theses Compatible?(1999)