PhilArchive
open access
Inquiry and Underdetermination
In this paper, we present a new kind of underdetermination. It arises when two or more scientists confront the same evidence, but assign different kinds of zetetic value to research questions of common interest. As we show, this is conceptually distinct from more venerable forms of underdetermination. We illustrate this using explanatory hypotheses in early 21st-century segregation research.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Induction, Experimentation and Causation in the Social Sciences#101818
- Underdetermination vs. Indeterminacy#747356
- Causation, exclusion, and the special sciences#762110
- Evolution of Quine’s Thinking on the Thesis of Underdetermination and Scott Soames’s Accusation of Paradoxicality#114778
- BonJour’s ‘Basic Antifoundationalist Argument’ and the Doctrine of the Given#740764
Record · ID 96222
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive