|Abstract||The old antagonism between the Quinean and the Duhemian view on underdetermination is reexamined. In this respect, two theses will be defended. First, it is argued that the main differences between Quine's and Duhem's versions of underdetermination derive from a different attitude towards the history of science. While Quine considered underdetermination from an ahistorical, a logical point of view, Duhem approached it as a distinguished historian of physics. On this basis, a logical and a historical version of the underdetermination thesis can be distinguished. The second thesis of the article is that the main objections against underdetermination are fatal only to the logical rendering. Taken together, the two theses constitute a defence of underdetermination.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Forrai (1999). Are Quine’s Two Indeterminacy Theses Compatible? Acta Analytica 14 (23.):89-99..
Steven French (2011). Metaphysical Underdetermination: Why Worry? Synthese 180 (2):205 - 221.
Carl Hoefer & Alexander Rosenberg (1994). Empirical Equivalence, Underdetermination, and Systems of the World. Philosophy of Science 61 (4):592-607.
Christian List (1999). Craig's Theorem and the Empirical Underdetermination Thesis Reassessed. Disputatio.
P. D. Magnus (2003). Underdetermination and the Problem of Identical Rivals. Philosophy of Science 70 (5):1256-1264.
Ian McDiarmid (2008). Underdetermination and Meaning Indeterminacy: What is the Difference? [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 69 (3):279 - 293.
K. M. Darling (2002). The Complete Duhemian Underdetermination Argument: Scientific Language and Practice. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (3):511-533.
Added to index2010-04-02
Total downloads56 ( #21,302 of 722,700 )
Recent downloads (6 months)27 ( #4,647 of 722,700 )
How can I increase my downloads?