- External reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermination
Underdetermination - Wikipedia
underdetermination or the underdetermination of theory by data (sometimes abbreviated UTD) is the idea that evidence available to us at a given time may be insufficient to determine what beliefs we should hold in response to it. The underdetermination thesis says that all evidence necessarily underdetermines any scientific theory.
In contrast, overdetermination in philosophy of science means that more evidence is available than is necessary to justify a conclusion
since one cannot always distinguish dreams from reality, one cannot rule out the possibility that one is dreaming rather than having veridical experiences; thus the conclusion that one is having a veridical experience is underdetermined. H
ts that all of one’s experiences and thoughts might be manipulated by a very powerful and deceptive “evil demon”. Once again, so long as the perceived reality appears internally consistent to the limits of one’s limited ability to tell, the situation is indistinguishable from reality and one cannot logically determine that such a demon does not exist
To show that a conclusion is underdetermined, one must show that there is a rival conclusion that is equally well supported by the standards of evidence
conclusion “objects near earth fall toward it when dropped” might be opposed by “objects near earth fall toward it when dropped but only when one checks to see that they do.” Since one may append this to any conclusion, all conclusions are at least trivially underdetermined.
If one considers such statements to be illegitimate, e.g. by applying Occam’s Razor, then such “tricks” are not considered demonstrations of underdetermination