How does Scientific Realism address the issue of underdetermination of theories by evidence?

Scientific Realism is a philosophical position that asserts the existence of an external reality that is independent of our observations and theories. It holds that scientific theories aim to provide an accurate representation of this reality, and that the success of science lies in its ability to uncover objective truths about the world.

The issue of underdetermination of theories by evidence refers to the fact that there are often multiple theories that can explain the same set of evidence. This poses a challenge to scientific realism because it raises the question of how we can determine which theory is the most accurate representation of reality.

Scientific realists address this issue by arguing that while evidence may underdetermine theories, it does not completely determine them. They contend that there are additional criteria, such as simplicity, coherence, and explanatory power, that can be used to evaluate and compare competing theories.

According to scientific realists, the best theory is the one that provides the most comprehensive and coherent explanation of the available evidence, while also being consistent with other well-established scientific theories. They believe that over time, as new evidence is gathered and theories are refined, the most successful theories will emerge and converge towards a more accurate understanding of reality.

In this view, scientific realism acknowledges the limitations of evidence in fully determining theories, but it maintains that there is still a rational basis for choosing between competing theories based on their overall explanatory power and coherence. By emphasizing the importance of these additional criteria, scientific realism provides a framework for addressing the issue of underdetermination and guiding scientific inquiry towards a more accurate understanding of the world.