Study Notes on Refusing the Devil's Bargain: Underdetermination in Science

Refusing the Devil's Bargain: What Kind of Underdetermination Should We Take Seriously?

Source: Philosophy of Science, September 2001, Vol. 68, No. 3, Supplement: Proceedings of the 2000 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers (pp. S1-S12)
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association.
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3080930

The discussion focuses on the arguments surrounding the concept of underdetermination, especially in the context of scientific theories.
Stanford critiques the notion that underdetermination relies solely on empirical equivalents of theories.
Historical context is provided alongside the examination of how scientific theories might fail to exhaust the set of well-confirmed possibilities.

Underdetermination: The idea that evidence alone may not determine which among competing theories is true.
Empirical Equivalence: When two theories produce the same predictions for all possible observations; such theories cannot be empirically distinguished from one another.

Historical reference to Pierre Duhem, who questioned whether alternatives to established scientific theories were conceivable despite available evidence.
Duhem raised the question: "Shall we ever dare to assert that no other hypothesis is imaginable?"
The challenge of underdetermination rests on the possibility that there are viable, unconceived alternatives to our current theories.

Arguments have been put forth suggesting that it's possible to generate empirical equivalents through algorithms.
Global Algorithms: These can produce empirical equivalents from any theory. Examples include:
- T': Asserts that the observable consequences of T are true but T itself is false.
- Hypothesis of the Makers: Suggests we are within a simulation, casting doubt on evident reality.
- Hypothesis of the Manipulators: Posits our experiences are manipulated to make them seem true.
Stanford argues that these algorithms yield only a Pyrrhic victory; they don’t solve the genuine threat from empirical underdetermination.
Critique of how empirical equivalents may mistakenly equate to radical skepticism rather than addressing the peculiar difficulties posed by scientific underdetermination.

TN(0): Newtonian gravitational theory can support multiple empirical equivalents of the form TN(v), where the universe's absolute velocity can be ascribed various constants.
Such equivalents do not genuinely threaten the approximate truth of established theories like Newtonian gravity because they merely represent different claims built upon the same core theory.

Overview of the concern that currently accepted theories may always have well-confirmed alternatives yet to be conceived.
Inspiration from Sklar (1975) who introduced the notion of recurrent transient underdetermination, emphasizing historical precedents in scientific revolutions.
Historical Evidence of Underdetermination: Instances from the history of science, like transitions from Aristotelian to Newtonian physics, support the argument that there were undiscovered yet plausible theories corroborated by existing evidence.
The New Induction proposes that throughout scientific history, there believe numerous alternatives to existing theories that remain unconceived or unexamined.

Discussion on the relation between evidence and the credibility of theories. Stanford argues that the historical pattern shows a tendency for sound current theories to have been preceded by unconceived theories equally well supported by past evidence.
The Pessimistic Induction: Laudan's(1981) argument posits that past successful theories can be considered false, creating a doubt about present theories, suggesting that they too may be subject to falsification.
Biological and physical sciences provide the most convincing empirical equivalents, but the reproduction of such examples in other scientific domains remains unresolved.

Stanford concludes that empirical equivalents should not form the basis for underdetermination arguments as they lead to philosophical conundrums rather than contributing positively to scientific methodology.
Asserts philosophical responsibility in confronting the past and future challenges of scientific theory acceptance.

Considerable bibliographic references are made throughout the paper, among them notable works by Quine, Earman, Glymour, and Laudan, filtering through the perspectives of various philosophers addressing underdetermination.