Definitions
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/ShareAlike License
 n. The state or quality of being underdetermined
Etymologies
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/ShareAlike License
Examples

An inference can be weaker or stronger depending on how much evidence points to a particular conclusion rather than to another one, and also on the number of possible alternative solutions (if there are too many competing hypotheses the evidence may simply not be sufficient to discriminate among them, a situation that philosophers call the underdetermination of theories by the data).

Our efforts to confirm scientific theories, he suggests, are no less threatened by what Larry Sklar (1975, 1981) has called “transient” underdetermination, that is, theories which are not empirically equivalent but are equally (or at least reasonably) well confirmed by all the evidence we happen to have in hand at the moment, so long as this transient predicament is also

The difficulty with any and all inductive inferences is that they are subject to often massive underdetermination, that is, the evidence can never establish the truth of any particular inference to the exclusion of all competing, nonconsistent inferences.

And Duhem's argument for what we would call underdetermination of theory basically insists that we can come up with any number of mathematical ways to organize any set of generalizations from experiment; we are limited in this only by the ingenuity of physicists and mathematicians.

The fact that their algorithm converges on unique, selfconsistent laws, seems to undermine the purported underdetermination of theory by data, a popular bone of contention in the philosophy of science.

So far your presentation of your model suffers from the same underdetermination.

Feminists, religious apologists including “creation scientists”, counterculturalists, neoconservatives, and a host of other curious fellowtravelers have claimed to find crucial grist for their mills in, for instance, the avowed incommensurability and underdetermination of scientific theories.

So by an underdeterminationstyle argument, one is not justified in believing either hypothesis.

It can probably be regarded as just a special case of the well known DuhemQuine underdetermination of theory by evidence: many philosophers of science hold that any theory can be made to fit any evidence provided one is allowed freely to supplement the theory with arbitrary (and perhaps ad hoc, complex, and implausible) auxiliary hypotheses, which is essentially what Anderson was doing.

Theorems specifying the precise extent of the underdetermination of causal claims by evidence about statistical relevance relationships can be found in Spirtes, Glymour and Scheines,
Comments
Log in or sign up to get involved in the conversation. It's quick and easy.