Enviar Solicitud De Regalo

Stanford:

It is perhaps most useful here to think of holist underdetermination as starting from a particular theory or body of beliefs and claiming that our revision of those beliefs in responseto new evidence may be underdetermined, while contrastive underdetermination instead starts from a given body of evidence and claims that more than one theory may be well-supported by that veryevidence. 
The Scientific Image (1980), van Fraassen uses a now-classic example to illustrate the possibility that even our best scientific theories might have empirical equivalents: that is, alternativetheories making the very same empirical predictions, and which therefore cannot be better or worse supported by any possible body of evidence. Consider Newton's cosmology, with its laws of motion andgravitational attraction.
In an influential discussion, Larry Laudan and Jarrett Leplin (1991) argue that philosophers of science have invested even the bare possibility that our theories might haveempirical equivalents with far too much epistemic significance. Notwithstanding the popularity of the presumption that there are empirically equivalent rivals to every theory, they argue, theconjunction of several familiar and relatively uncontroversial epistemological theses is sufficient to defeat it. 
Laudan and Leplin conclude that there simply is no guarantee that any two theories judged tobe empirically equivalent at a given time will remain so as the state of our knowledge advances

Subdeterminación genera convencionalismo
Subdeterminación contrastive local
El tipo de razones afavor de las teorías.
Dos torías equivalentes piricamente pueden tener distinto grado de apoyo evidencial.
They concede that it is always possible that there are empirical equivalents to even ourbest scientific theories concerning any domain of nature, but insist that we should not be willing to suspend belief in any particular theory until some convincing alternative to it can actually be...