Arguments Involving Underdetermination
Arguments involving underdetermination attempt to show that there is no reason to believe some conclusion because it is underdetermined by the evidence. Then, if the evidence available at a particular time can be equally well explained by at least one other hypothesis, there is no reason to believe it rather than the equally supported rival (although many other hypotheses may still be eliminated).
Because arguments involving underdetermination involve both a claim about what the evidence is and that such evidence underdetermines a conclusion, it is often useful to separate these two claims within the underdetermination argument as follows:
- All the available evidence of a certain type underdetermines which of several rival conclusions is correct.
- Only evidence of that type is relevant to believing one of these conclusions.
- Therefore, there is no evidence for believing one among the rival conclusions.
The first premise makes the claim that a theory is underdetermined. The second says that rational decision (i.e. using available evidence) depends upon insufficient evidence.
Read more about this topic: Underdetermination
Famous quotes containing the words arguments and/or involving:
“‘Tis happy, therefore, that nature breaks the force of all sceptical arguments in time, and keeps them from having any considerable influence on the understanding. Were we to trust entirely to their self-destruction, that can never take place, ‘till they have first subverted all conviction, and have totally destroy’d human reason.”
—David Hume (1711–1776)
“What causes adolescents to rebel is not the assertion of authority but the arbitrary use of power, with little explanation of the rules and no involvement in decision-making. . . . Involving the adolescent in decisions doesn’t mean that you are giving up your authority. It means acknowledging that the teenager is growing up and has the right to participate in decisions that affect his or her life.”
—Laurence Steinberg (20th century)