Defending underdetermination or why the historical perspective makes a difference

In Henk W. de Regt (ed.), Epsa Philosophy of Science: Amsterdam 2009. Springer. pp. 303--313 (2012)
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)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 25,651
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Hidden Underdetermination: A Case Study in Classical Electrodynamics.Wolfgang Pietsch - 2012 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 26 (2):125-151.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2010-04-02

Total downloads

137 ( #32,574 of 2,143,511 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

6 ( #120,522 of 2,143,511 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums