Philosophy of Science: Duhem-Quine Thesis

I explain in detail what the Duhem-Quine Thesis is, and demonstrate that it overcomes its major objections, including assistance from Quine's Explanatory Virtues.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Pierre Duhem
• Willard Quine
• Duhem-Quine Thesis
• Philosophy of Science
• Explanatory
• Virtues
• Theoretical
• Epistemic
• Phenomenalism
• Verificationist Principle
• Verificationism

[Sewblon]

If any hypothesis requires an infinite regress of presuppositions to make it testable. What stops us from doubting any of the presuppositions that make Quine's explanatory virtues virtuous? 

[Oppositum]

@Sewblon Results :P

[TheApollo81]

Part 2: Thus, they all make the same observational predictions, they all carry the same simplicity, they all carry the same modesty, but all have different conceptual underpinnings to them that contradict one another. Also, Quine never produced anything to show that truth is based on modesty or simplicity. That is only based on our preference. That is based on psychological factors of human beings, not on reality.

[Oppositum]

@TheApollo81 But isnt explaination reduction to the simple? I agree to a large extent except that I see simplicity & modesty as explanatory virtues in many cases, such as evolutionary factors explained in terms of simple principles (natural selection) or fractal images--which looks very complex--but are explained with a very simple formula. I think what your objection is getting at is our preference for simplicity is pragmatic and inductive. But I don't see that being a bad thing if it works

[TheApollo81]

@Oppositum My other point is that complex things "work" just as well. They just don't meet some of our aesthetic principles (simplicity and modesty). This might be a crude analogy, but it works like this. I want to have a child with a woman. So which woman should I pick? Obviously the one that I can get pregnant (their fertile). I come across two women that have been tested, and have been found to be fertile. One ugly and one sexy. Which do I choose? The sexy one, why? Cause like that

[TheApollo81]

@Oppositum I'm not saying that people prefer simplicity and modesty. The problem is that simplicity and modesty are hard to define themselves. Also, modesty and simplicity have no truth function, and don't tell you anything about the world. They only tell you non-truth functions, and things that you prefer. They're just aesthetic principles, like I prefer purple over red. Whenever I have a choice of those, I take purple everytime. Also, I don't see how simplicity is inductive.

[TheApollo81]

@Oppositum Reply II: So pragmatics is the only reason, and it's not inductive or based on truth. It's based on our psychological make up, and our desires and values. It's not based on facts. In fact, we find that things are complex, and not simple. So our desires go contrary to reality. But, as I already pointed out, we can come up with competing simple hypothesis, and so we still have no reason, except flipping a coin of heads and tails, and we pick heads or tails by preference.

[TheApollo81]

@Oppositum No, explanation isn't reduction to the simple. Take this example. We can explain the observations of the planets by saying that the earth is the center of the solar system. Why don't we, when the observational data is compatible with it? Because the mathematics is more complicated. Why do we prefer the simple mathematics? Because it takes less time. Thus, analogously, we can explain an event in complex ways, but it takes longer and harder to follow. It still works.

[TheApollo81]

Part 1: Quine never really avoided anything with modesty or simplicity. His Undetermination argument, which is logically valid and sound, shows that modesty and simplicity does not help. For, logically, there are an infinite amount of alternative hypothesis that we could form that are all modest and simple, this means that all things are literally equal except for one thing; they give contradictory conceptual underpinnings that make up the hypothesis.

[Oppositum]

@lukexalfa Right - which is why he tried to establish a science of pure deduction. However, this failed miserably. Science needs induction and inference; typically on a 'what's more likely than not' basis.