Underdetermination of Theory by Evidence
Updated 2026-08-08
INTRODUCTION
English translation pending.
CORE DEFINITION
A central problem in the philosophy of science, associated with W. V. O. Quine and later with Larry Laudan. For any finite body of evidence, multiple mutually incompatible theories can account for it equally well, because theories include auxiliary assumptions that are not directly tested. Evidence therefore cannot uniquely determine which theory to accept, and the choice involves non-evidential considerations such as simplicity and explanatory scope.
SCAFFOLDING EFFECT
Reduce cognitive load
- Generate rivals: for any dataset, write down at least two incompatible explanations that fit it - Expose assumptions: identify the auxiliary assumptions each explanation depends on - Design discriminating tests: look for an observation where the rivals predict differently rather than collecting more of the same data
Anchor fast decisions
A theory's predictions depend on auxiliary assumptions, so a set of observations can be accommodated by adjusting those assumptions rather than the core claim. With enough freedom in the auxiliaries, competing theories can be made to fit the same data. Discrimination therefore requires a new observation that the rivals handle differently, which is why more of the same evidence cannot settle the question.
MINIMUM ACTION
In progress 0/1Practice this model in one real situation:
account_treeGenealogyexpand_more
menu_bookReferencesexpand_more
Source support: Explicit
- en.wikipedia.orghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdeterminationverified
PRIVATE NOTES · Only visible to you
SAVED Q&A
ENTRY Q&A · Private saving available
Ask with a clear boundary
thinkingmodels answers from published entry context only.
Your question is sent to thinkingmodels. The answer uses public entry context only.
RELATED MODELS