Philosophy Scientific Realism Questions Long
The concept of 'underdetermination' refers to the idea that scientific theories are always underdetermined by the available evidence. In other words, there are always multiple theories that can explain the same set of observations or data. This means that no matter how much evidence we gather, we can never conclusively prove that a particular theory is true or that it is the only possible explanation for the observed phenomena.
Underdetermination has significant implications for scientific realism, which is the philosophical position that scientific theories aim to provide an accurate description of the world as it is. Scientific realists argue that theories should be accepted as true or approximately true if they are well-supported by empirical evidence and successful in making accurate predictions.
However, underdetermination challenges the realist's claim that theories are true or approximately true. If there are always multiple theories that can explain the same evidence, then it becomes difficult to determine which theory is the most accurate representation of reality. This raises doubts about the realist's claim that scientific theories provide a privileged access to the truth.
Underdetermination also raises questions about the objectivity of scientific knowledge. If theories are underdetermined, then the choice between competing theories may be influenced by subjective factors such as personal biases, social and cultural factors, or even aesthetic preferences. This challenges the realist's claim that scientific knowledge is objective and independent of human subjectivity.
Furthermore, underdetermination suggests that scientific progress is not a linear process of accumulating evidence in favor of a single theory. Instead, it implies that scientific progress involves a continuous evaluation and revision of theories in light of new evidence. This challenges the realist's view that scientific theories are stable and unchanging representations of reality.
In response to underdetermination, some philosophers have proposed alternative approaches to scientific realism. One such approach is the 'inference to the best explanation,' which suggests that we should accept the theory that provides the best explanation for the available evidence, even if it is not conclusively proven. This approach acknowledges the underdetermination of theories but still allows for the rational acceptance of scientific theories based on their explanatory power.
In conclusion, underdetermination poses significant challenges to scientific realism by suggesting that theories are always underdetermined by the available evidence. This raises doubts about the truth and objectivity of scientific knowledge and challenges the realist's claim that theories provide a privileged access to reality. However, alternative approaches such as the inference to the best explanation offer potential ways to address these challenges and maintain a form of scientific realism.