How do we address the problem of underdetermination in scientific theory choice?
Pro Research Analysisby 
Searched over 200M research papers
Consensus Meter
Addressing the Problem of Underdetermination in Scientific Theory Choice
Understanding Underdetermination in Scientific Theories
Underdetermination in scientific theory choice refers to the idea that empirical evidence alone may not be sufficient to determine which of several competing theories is the correct one. This issue arises because different theories can often explain the same set of observations, making it challenging to choose between them based solely on empirical data.
Identifying and Differentiating Theories
One approach to addressing underdetermination is to distinguish between genuinely different theories and mere alternate formulations of the same theory. For instance, Quine suggested that two theories could be considered identical if they are equivalent under a reconstrual of predicates. However, this approach can mishandle important cases, such as the historical debate over the equivalence of wave and matrix mechanics. Another proposal is to defer to the judgments of actual scientists, but this too has limitations. Despite these challenges, it is possible to investigate underdetermination without fully resolving the problem of identical rivals.
Empirical Equivalence and Theoretical Virtues
Laudan and Leplin's work on empirical equivalence suggests that while empirical evidence may not always be decisive, science possesses tools that can eventually lead out of an underdetermination impasse. Their analysis, applied to the case of Lorentz's ether theory and Einstein's special relativity, illustrates that theoretical virtues such as simplicity, coherence, and explanatory power can help in making a choice between empirically equivalent theories.
Scientific Pluralism and Methodological Incommensurability
A pluralist approach to science argues that the coexistence of competing hypotheses can be beneficial. This perspective highlights that underdetermination is not only about the inferential link between theory and evidence but also involves the constitution and interpretation of evidence, the choice of investigative methods, and the interpretation of background theories. Scientific pluralism suggests that maintaining a diversity of approaches can generate epistemic benefits, even if the controversy is not resolved.
Philosophical Responses to Underdetermination
Different philosophical schools offer varied responses to underdetermination. For example, scientific realists argue that theoretical virtues can largely solve the problem, while acknowledging that some cases may remain unresolved. Constructive empiricists and instrumentalists, on the other hand, may accept underdetermination as a natural part of scientific practice and focus on the practical utility of theories rather than their truth .
Bayesian Epistemology and Rational Choice
A pragmatic Bayesian epistemology offers another way to address underdetermination. By incorporating both subjective and objective elements, this framework allows for a rational choice of theories even in the face of underdetermination. It rejects arguments that rely solely on deductivism or the failure of inductive methods, thereby reinstating the possibility of rational theory choice.
Conclusion
Underdetermination presents a significant challenge in scientific theory choice, but various strategies can help address it. Distinguishing between genuinely different theories and alternate formulations, leveraging theoretical virtues, embracing scientific pluralism, and adopting a Bayesian epistemological framework are all viable approaches. These methods collectively contribute to a more nuanced and effective way of managing underdetermination in science.
Sources and full results
Most relevant research papers on this topic