editor, Administrators
500
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
no edit summary
|Criticism=There were many criticism for the Duhem-Quine thesis and the Duhem thesis in general. Grünbaum believed there was no general argument to prove the existence of at least one other theory for any theory containing evidence. The main criticism was voiced by Larry Laudan in ''Demystifying Underdeterminism''. The idea was also repeated in the identical rival’s objection.
The main argument is that in all the cases where there are seemingly endless theories that explain one theory and it's observations, (essentially in all instances of Quine's non-uniqueness thesis), the theories are actually the same but just formulated differently. [[CiteRef::Laudan (19901990a)]] John Norton, who works in the Center for Philosophy of Science and Department of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh, summarized this by saying "“The very fact that observational equivalence can be demonstrated by arguments brief enough to be included in a journal article means that we cannot preclude the possibility that the theories are merely variant formulations of the same theory.” [[CiteRef::Norton (2008)]]
John Norton also gave his own argument known as the Gap Argument. This argument stated that to date, there is no evidence that can determine the content of a scientific theory. However since there is universal agreement on the content of scientific theories, then there is a gap where some agreements cannot be explained by evidence. This seems to undermine the under determination thesis [[CiteRef::Okasha, de Regt, and Hartmann (Eds.) (2009)]]
|Page Status=Needs Editing
}}
