Underdetermination Thesis, Duhem-Quine Thesis
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Underdetermination is a relation between evidence and theory. More accurately, it is a relation between the propositions that express the (relevant) evidence and the propositions that constitute the theory. Evidence is said to underdetermine theory. This may mean two things. First, the evidence cannot prove the truth of the theory. Second, the evidence cannot render the theory probable. Let’s call the first deductive underdetermination, and the second inductive (or ampliative) underdetermination. Both kinds of claim are supposed to have a certain epistemic implication, viz., that belief in theory is never warranted by the evidence. This is the underdetermination thesis
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Christian List (1999). Craig's Theorem and the Empirical Underdetermination Thesis Reassessed. Disputatio 7:28-39.
Carl Hoefer & Alexander Rosenberg (1994). Empirical Equivalence, Underdetermination, and Systems of the World. Philosophy of Science 61 (4):592-607.
Forrai (1999). Are Quine’s Two Indeterminacy Theses Compatible? Acta Analytica 14 (23.):89-99..
Ward E. Jones (2000). Underdetermination and the Explanation of Theory-Acceptance: A Response to Samir Okasha. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 14 (3):299 – 304.
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.
F. Weinert (1995). The Duhem-Quine Thesis Revisited. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 9 (2):147 – 156.
John D. Norton (forthcoming). Must Evidence Underdetermine Theory. The Challenge of the Social and the Pressure of Practice:17--44.
Wolfgang Pietsch (2012). Defending Underdetermination or Why the Historical Perspective Makes a Difference. In Henk W. de Regt (ed.), Epsa Philosophy of Science: Amsterdam 2009. Springer 303--313.
Ian McDiarmid (2008). Underdetermination and Meaning Indeterminacy: What is the Difference? [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 69 (3):279 - 293.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads69 ( #49,355 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?