Underdetermination Of Theory Research Articles

Quine's relativism

Keywords: W.V.Quine claimed that relativism is paradoxical and unacceptable; nevertheless, his own views concerning truth and the underdetermination of theories by data amount to an interesting and plausible form of relativism.

The problem of underdetermination

We are examining the problem of underdetermination of theory by data starting from the thesis of empirical equivalence as the strongest form in which underdetermination is formulated. We will consider the consequences of this thesis on the basis of different attempts to resolve it, whereby untenability of realistic and some antirealist solutions of a problem is envisaged. The acceptance of pragmatic (non-realist) stance marks a departure from the final solution on behalf of a practical decision making in circumstances of de facto underdetermination.

Feminism, Underdetermination, and Values in Science

Several feminist philosophers of science have tried to open up the possibility that feminist ethical or political commitments could play a positive role in good science by appealing to the Duhem-Quine thesis and underdetermination of theories by observation. I examine several different interpretations of the claim that feminist values could play a legitimate role in theory justification and show that none of them follow from a logical gap between theory and observation. Finally, I sketch an alternative approach for defending the possibility that feminist political commitments could play a legitimate role in science.

Duhem, Quine, Wittgenstein and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge: Continuity or Self-Legitimating?

Contemporary sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) is defined by its relativist trend. Its programme often calls for the support of philosophers, such as Duhem, Quine, and Wittgenstein. A critical rereading of key texts shows that the main principles of relativism are only derivable with difficulty. The thesis of the underdetermination of theory doesn't forbid that Duhem, in many places, validates a correspondence-consistency theory of truth. Thus he never says that social beliefs and interests fill the lack of underdetermination. Quine's view on the underdetermination of theory by data leads to Duhem's view. But, to take some examples, his idea of a selective revision of hypotheses, as well as the neat incompatibility between holism and conventionalism, openly challenges the principles of relativism. When reading Wittgenstein's work, which is not presented in book-form but rather as a tree, we have first to avoid aphoristic choices that credit any text-excising. This remark allows us to tackle the passages that sociological relativism is based on. According to Wittgenstein, mathematical conventions seem not to be anthropological objects. Moreover, when Wittgenstein examines the famous language-games, he only speaks of the functioning of natural language, not to be confused with scientific formal languages. We then should render the formula language-game by well-defined, explicit and compulsory rules of communication, this is a much less attractive formula for relativism. Consequently, in terms of contents, there doesn't exist a real continuity between the epistemologies of Duhem, Quine and Wittgenstein, and the recent works of the SSK. Thus we are entitled to wonder whether such references don't simply further the purpose of self-legitimising the programme.

Quine's Notion of Fact of the Matter

Quine’s notion of fact of the matter has received very little attention, although a good grasp of it is crucial to an understanding of some of Quine’s famous formulations of the indeterminacy of translation thesis. The notion is used and cited by many but has to my knowledge never been thoroughly analysed. In the present article, I attempt to analyse and clarify it. In the first section, my exposition focuses on the relations Quine has developed between his notion of fact of the matter and his views on physicalism and ontology. The main conclusion of this section is that Quine’s notion of fact of the matter is ontological. That is to say, for Quine, the notion concerns extralinguistic reality, which is ultimately described by physics. In the second section, I try to show what relations Quine sees between facts of the matter and truth. The main conclusion of this section is that, for Quine, facts of the matter determine truth. This determination is to be understood in the context of Quine’s genetic approach to evidence, which reveals that it is through the mechanism of conditioned response that facts of the matter determine truth. It is hoped that the present analyses will shed new light on Quine’s controversial indeterminacy of translation thesis as well as on the asymmetry that Quine sees between that thesis and underdetermination of theory.

Black, White and Gray: Quine on Convention

This paper examines Quine’s web of belief metaphor and its role in his various responses to conventionalism. Distinguishing between two versions of conventionalism, one based on the under-determination of theory, the other associated with a linguistic account of necessary truth, I show how Quine plays the two versions of conventionalism against each other. Some of Quine’s reservations about conventionalism are traced back to his 1934 lectures on Carnap. Although these lectures appear to endorse Carnap’s conventionalism, in exposing Carnap’s failure to provide an explanatory account of analytic truth, they in fact anticipate Quine’s later critique of conventionalism. I further argue that Quine eventually deconstructs both his own metaphor and the thesis of under-determination it serves to illustrate. This enables him to hold onto under-determination, but at the cost of depleting it of any real epistemic significance. Lastly, I explore the implications of this deconstruction for Quine’s indeterminacy of translation thesis.

Hormone research as an exemplar of underdetermination

Debates about the underdetermination of theory by data often turn on specific examples. Cases invoked often enough become familiar, even well worn. Since Helen Longino’s discussion of the case, the connection between prenatal hormone levels and gender-linked childhood behaviour has become one of these stock examples. However, as I argue here, the case is not genuinely underdetermined. We can easily imagine a possible experiment to decide the question. The fact that we would not perform this experiment is a moral, rather than epistemic, point. Finally, I suggest that the ‘underdetermination’ of the case may be inessential for Longino to establish her central claim about it.

Against the Politics of Postmodern Philosophy of Science

This paper discusses the tenets of the politics of postmodern philosophy of science. At issue are Rouse’s version of naturalism and his reading of Quine’s distinction between the indeterminacy of translation and the underdetermination of theories by empirical evidence. I argue that the postmodern approach to science’s research practices as patterns of interaction within the world is not in line with the naturalistic account Rouse aims at. I focus also on Rouse’s readings of Heidegger’s existential conception of science and Kuhn’s concept of normal science. Finally, a strategy of defending science’s cognitive distinctiveness in terms of hermeneutic philosophy is suggested as an alternative to the postmodern philosophy of science.

Can Common Sense Realism be Extended to Theoretical Physics?

In this paper I argue in favour of a moderate and selective version of scientific realism with respect to the existence of some physical theoretical objects and the truth of some statements about them. The analysis of common sense or ordinary experience reveals that existence and truth assertions concerning familiar objects are warranted if they satisfy what we call the criteria of presence and invariance. Ordinary objects exemplify a form or a structure determined by constant and changing features with respect to the variation of the conditions of observation and a content given in sensory presence. It is claimed that some theoretical physical objects that possess a structure or a form determined by invariant and variable characteristics relatively to a specified group of transformations and a content provided by observations on which the measurement of those characteristics is grounded can also be justifiably asserted to exist. We further show that this defence of scientific realism in physics doesn't fall prey to the objections that have been raised against the usual vindication of scientific realism based on the no-miracle argument. Some standard objections to scientific realism, such as the underdetermination of theories by observations and the pessimistic meta-induction, are examined and shown to be unconvincing.

What Demonstrative Induction Can Do Against the Threat of Underdetermination: Bohr, Heisenberg, and Pauli on Spectroscopic Anomalies (1921–24)

In this paper I argue that demonstrative induction can deal with the problem of underdetermination of theory by evidence. I present the historical case study of spectroscopy in the early 1920s, where the choice among different theories was apparently underdetermined by spectroscopic evidence concerning the alkali doublets and their anomalous Zeeman effect. By casting this historical episode within the methodological framework of demonstrative induction, the local underdetermination among Bohr's, Heisenberg's, and Pauli's rival theories is resolved in favour of Pauli's theory of the electron's spin.

Toward a Political Philosophy of Science

Science is commonly conceived as a system of propositions tested and justified through rigorous methods, that seeks to achieve epistemic values such as objectivity, coherence, precision, systematization, generalization, explanatory and predictive force. Even less orthodox authors, like Thomas Kuhn who focuses not only on science as product but also as a specific kind of social practice, only takes into account epistemic values, and leaves aside moral, social and political considerations. From this point of view, science is morally and politically neutral. More recently some philosophers like Javier Echeverria (2002) and Leon Olive (2000) have pointed out the relevance of non- epistemic values to understand the development of science and technology. However, from Karl Popper to Larry Laudan, most philosophers of science consider that introducing social or political discussions in the context of justification of scientific theories represents a serious threat to the rationality of science. Those authors like Paul Feyerabend and Michel Foucault, who point out the intrinsic relationship between scientific truth and political power, are condemned as irrational postmodernists. Fortunately during the last decades the social, moral and political dimensions of science have caught the attention of philosophers, sociologists and historians of science in the scope of Science and Technology Studies (STS) (Fuller, 1993; Pickering, 1992; Mitcham, 1995; Ibarra and Lopez Cerezo, 2003). But this new and increasingly innovative discipline, although it challenges many presuppositions of standard philosophy of science (mainly logical empiricism), deals more with the interaction of science and technology in applied contexts (techno science) rather than with the intrinsic problems of justification of scientific theories. My main purpose here is to argue that it is necessary to consider moral and political questions in the core of epistemological and methodological problems of scientific theories that are typically discussed in traditional philosophy of science. Accordingly, the first part of my argument relies on two important philosophers of science from the beginning of the twentieth century: Pierre Duhem and Otto Neurath. Both criticized the widespread idea that the rationality and objectivity of science is exclusively based on a rigorous methodology, and both introduced moral, social and political considerations to clarify the nature of scientific rationality. Unfortunately these important insights of the founding fathers of the twentieth century philosophy of science have not been recovered and acknowledged by most of their philosophical heirs. After clarifying some important moral, social, and political aspects of scientific rationality, the second part of my argument uses the pragmatic view of scientific rationality to challenge the methodological and exclusively epistemic concept of rationality that originated with Plato and became the dominant view in modern philosophy through the work of Rene Descartes, Francis Bacon, and Thomas Hobbes. I also discuss the political consequences of methodological and epistemic rationality, taken together with the widespread idea that political and even ethical decisions must be based on scientific knowledge. I maintain that these two theses are not only false, but have strong authoritarian implications. Finally, the third part of my argument turns again to Neurath in order to suggest a republican way of relating science and political decisions, so as to promote social and political values, such as justice and democracy, alongside epistemic values. Empirical Underdetermination, Good Sense, and Auxiliary Motives In his book, The End and Structure of Physical Theory (1906), Pierre Duhem presented one of the most important issues of contemporary philosophy of science: the empirical Underdetermination of theories. This problem was subsequently developed by Willard Van Orman Quine and is commonly know as the Duhem-Quine thesis. …

Underdetermination and the Problem of Identical Rivals

If two theory formulations are merely different expressions of the same theory, then any problem of choosing between them cannot be due to the underdetermination of theories by data. So one might suspect that we need to be able to tell distinct theories from mere alternate formulations before we can say anything substantive about underdetermination, that we need to solve the problem of identical rivals before addressing the problem of underdetermination. Here I consider two possible solutions: Quine proposes that we call two theories identical if they are equivalent under a reconstrual of predicates, but this would mishandle important cases. Another proposal is to defer to the particular judgements of actual scientists. Consideration of an historical episode—the alleged equivalence of wave and matrix mechanics—shows that this second proposal also fails. Nevertheless, I suggest, the original suspicion is wrong; there are ways to enquire into underdetermination without having solved the problem of identical rivals.

Taking Underdetermination Seriously

The underdetermination of theory by evidence deserves to be taken seriously. But what are the consequences of doing so, for scientific theorizing in general, for realism in particular, and for scientific explanation? Underdetermination ratifies a broadly anti-realist (nominalist) position on the question of scientific theorizing. This position has radical implications when applied to scientific explanation. The accepted hierarchy between different levels of explanation is called into question, as is the doctrine of explanatory exclusion. There emerge many competing nomological explanatory accounts, and competing reductive bases. Underdetermination thus has profound implications for some of the most basic questions in the philosophy of science, when taken seriously.

Curve It, Gauge It, or Leave It? Practical Underdetermination in Gravitational Theories

Four empirically equivalent versions of general relativity, namely standard GR, Lorentz-invariant gravitational theory, and the gravitational gauge theories of the Lorentz and translation groups, are investigated in the form of a case study for theory underdetermination. The various ontological indeterminacies (both underdetermination and inscrutability of reference) inherent in gravitational theories are analyzed in a detailed comparative study. The concept of practical underdetermination is proposed, followed by a discussion of its adequacy to describe scientific progress.

Translations and Theories: On the Difference Between Indeterminacy and Underdetermination

Despite Quine's recurrent claims to the contrary, the idea is still widespread that indeterminacy of translation is a special case of underdetermination of theories. In this paper we explain how indeterminacy differs from underdetermination, and in what ways such gifted Quine scholars as Gemes and Bergström went astray.

Are rival theories of smoking underdetermined?

Some empirically minded philosophers of science argue that the evidence should choose the best theory from among theoretical rivals. However, the evidence may not speak clearly, a problem of 'underdetermination of theory by data'. We examine this problem in a concrete setting, rival theories of smoking behaviour. We investigate whether several uncontested pieces of empirical evidence allow us to choose between two competing theoretical perspectives on smoking, rational choice and non-rational choice, respectively. Next, we develop a more refined taxonomy of smoking theories, and consider the consequences for theory testing. Finally, we examine some normative aspects of theory choice involving the appropriate scope of government action.

The underdetermination of theory by data and the “strong programme” in the sociology of knowledge

Advocates of the “strong programme” in the sociology of knowledge have argued that, because scientific theories are “underdetermined” by data, sociological factors must be invoked to explain why scientists believe the theories they do. I examine this argument, and the responses to it by J.R. Brown (1989) and L. Laudan (1996). I distinguish between a number of different versions of the underdetermination thesis, some trivial, some substantive. I show that Brown's and Laudan's attempts to refute the sociologists' argument fail. Nonetheless, the sociologists' argument falls to a different criticism, for the version of the underdetermination thesis that the argument requires, has not been shown to be true.

The Anti-realist Argument for Underdetermination

Typically, anti‐realists argue for the underdetermination of theory by the data (UD) on the basis of the claim that each theory has empirically equivalent rivals (EE). Leplin has recently sought to show that, whatever the truth‐value of this latter claim, it cannot play any positive role in an argument for underdetermination. I argue that Leplin's attempt fails.

The Anti-realist Argument for Underdetermination

Typically, anti-realists argue for the underdetermination of theory by the data (UD) on the basis of the claim that each theory has empirically equivalent rivals (EE). Leplin has recently sought to show that, whatever the truth-value of this latter claim, it cannot play any positive role in an argument for underdetermination. I argue that Leplin's attempt fails.

The Scope, Limits, and Distinctiveness of the Method of 'Deduction from the Phenomena': Some Lessons from Newton's 'Demonstrations' in Optics

Having been neglected or maligned for most of this century, Newton's method of 'deduction from the phenomena' has recently attracted renewed attention and support. John Norton, for example, has argued that this method has been applied with notable success in a variety of cases in the history of physics and that this explains why the massive underdetermination of theory by evidence, seemingly entailed by hypothetico-deductive methods, is invisible to working physicists. This paper, through a detailed analysis of Newton's deduction of one particular proposition' in optics from the phenomena', gives a clearer account than hitherto of the method-highlighting the fact that it is really one of deduction from the phenomena plus 'background knowledge'. It argues that, although the method has certain heuristic virtues, examination of its putative accreditational strengths reveals a range of important problems that its defenders have yet adequately to address. 1 Introduction: Newton, hypotheses, and demonstration 2 Newton's deduction from the phenomena of the different refrangibility' proposition in optics 3 Analysis of Newton's deduction' 4 What is the status of the implicit assumptions involved in Newton's proof? 5 So is Newton's method distinctive and, if so, what can it deliver? 5.1 The distinctiveness of deduction from the phenomena': heuristics 5.2 How distinctive is 'deduction from the phenomena'?: accreditation 5.2.1 The inductive steps 5.2.2 The dependence on 'background knowledge' 5.3 The scope and power of deduction from the phenomena: Isaac Newton and John Norton on certainty Conclusion: where to go from here?