چکیده:
One of the most influential arguments against the scientific realist’s position is the Underdetermination Argument (UD) which holds that every theory has indefinitely many empirically equivalent, but logically incompatible, rivals, and hence there is no rational epistemic basis for believing any theory to be true. In this paper, after explaining some general points about and presumptions of UD, the most important arguments for and against UD will be discussed. Then, it is argued that a modified version of scientific realism, called “entity realism” (ER) can be immune from UD, since it is only committed to the existence of some unobservables, but is agnostic about their theoretical descriptions (whatnesses). ER, however, would be an incoherent thesis if the existence/whatness distinction, and the Existentialist’s idea, according to which existence is fundamentally real, is rejected. The conclusion of this paper is that ER, supplemented with Existentialism, although is not an ideal stance, is the best secured position for scientific realists that worth fighting for.
خلاصه ماشینی:
6 Based on epistemic realism, non-falsified scientific theories that have been well-confirmed by empirical experiments and have had successful predictions provide an approximately true description of Unobservables (or, Theoretical Entities) See: Psillos, 1999.
On the other hand, from Kukla's perspective, a global theory consists of the conjunction of all acceptable scientific theories in such a way that it includes the entirety of all statements, both theoretical and observational, accepted by the scientific community 5 In any case, some realists have said that if the underdetermination argument is considered for the entirety of science, anti-realists must show that such a comprehensive and complete theory for all of science can essentially exist.
1- The Holistic Argument: 4 Some philosophers believe in the underdetermination thesis based on the assumption that it is an obvious fact that for every scientific theory, there always exists an empirically equivalent theory.
A few examples: Van Fraassen's recipe for producing competing theories that are empirically equivalent but theoretically incompatible (the description of which has already passed); Descartes' evil demon that produces false beliefs; Russell's hypothetical universe that was created only five minutes ago, under the assumption that its entire long history exists only in the human mind; and likewise, Nozick's thought experiment titled Brain in a Vat. Regarding the first two groups, Norton argues that one cannot rule out the possibility that they are different formulations of a single theory.
(
, 
, 
)
