more on this theme | more from this text
Full Idea
According to anti-realists, scientific theories which posit unobservable entities are underdetermined by the empirical data - there will always be a number of competing theories which can account for the data equally well.
Gist of Idea
Theories with unobservables are underdetermined by the evidence
Source
Samir Okasha (Philosophy of Science: Very Short Intro (2nd ed) [2016], 4)
Book Ref
Okasha,Samir: 'Philosophy of Science: very short intro (2nd ed)' [OUP 2016], p.67
A Reaction
The fancy version is Putnam's model theoretic argument, explored by Tim Button. The reply, apparently, is that there are other criteria for theory choice, apart from the data. And we don't have to actually observe everything in a theory.
| 17366 | Virtually all modern views of speciation rest on relational rather than intrinsic features [Okasha] |
| 22172 | Not all sciences are experimental; astronomy relies on careful observation [Okasha] |
| 22174 | The discoverers of Neptune didn't change their theory because of an anomaly [Okasha] |
| 22175 | Science mostly aims at confirming theories, rather than falsifying them [Okasha] |
| 22176 | Induction is inferences from examined to unexamined instances of a given kind [Okasha] |
| 22178 | If the rules only concern changes of belief, and not the starting point, absurd views can look ratiional [Okasha] |
| 22173 | Galileo refuted the Aristotelian theory that heavier objects fall faster [Okasha] |
| 22177 | Randomised Control Trials have a treatment and a control group, chosen at random [Okasha] |
| 22180 | Multiple realisability is said to make reduction impossible [Okasha] |
| 22182 | Theories with unobservables are underdetermined by the evidence [Okasha] |
| 22185 | Two things can't be incompatible if they are incommensurable [Okasha] |