Changes

Scientific underdetermination is the thesis that the process of [[Scientific Change|scientific change ]] is not deterministic, and science could have evolved differently than it did. Hypothetically, two [[Scientific Community|scientific communities ]] developing separately could experience an entirely different sequence of successive states of their respective [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaics. ]] Even without the TSC, the implausibility of scientific determinism can be seen by considering the process of [[Theory|theory ]] construction, which is outside the present scope of the TSC. Theory construction requires creative imagination, and the formulation of a given theory is therefore not inevitable. Still, underdetermination can also be inferred as a theorem from the axioms of the TSC [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 196-198]].

The [[The Third Law|third law ]] allows for two distinct scenarios of method employment. A [[Method|method ]] may become employed because it follows strictly from accepted [[Theory|theories ]] or employed methods, or it may the abstract requirements of some other employed method. This second scenario allows for creative ingenuity and depends on the technology of the times, therefore it may be fulfilled in many ways and allows underdeterminism.

The process of [[Theory Acceptance|theory acceptance assessment]] under the TSC is underdetermined for two reasons. First, only theories that are constructed are available for assessment. Whether or not a theory is ever constructed is, at least partly a matter of creativity, and is therefore outside the scope of the TSC. Second, it is at least theoretically possible that a process of theory assessment will be inconclusive. This might be because the employed method of the time is vague, or because it involves multiple criteria, only some of which have been met.