Philosophy Now Forum

Are probabilistic theories expressions of underdetermination?

What do you think?

Somehow I think they are. Reality should be fixed like reflections of gravity and other phenomena we never doubt.

Probabilistic theories are like temporary work that may one day change if we can identify underlying laws seemingly resulting in probabilistic theories.

I'll just like to have your opinions on it. I'll come back with more later.

Hi Aetixintro

Aetixintro wrote:...reflections of gravity and other phenomena we never doubt.

Whats a reflection of gravity?

With respect to the underdeterminism and probability I'd essay a no, as, as far as I was lead to understand, "underdeterminism" in Phil of Sci is(was?) the problem that the experimental facts appear to be consistent with multiple theories, or, maybe, that multiple theories appear to be consistent with same experimental facts.
a-uk

Hi a-uk

Whats a reflection of gravity?

I take the example of gravity as as a law of nature and I expect ALL other relationships to be likewise laws of nature in the same infallible manner. I think to the very minute level these relationships are determinate as described (as laws of nature).
Aetix.

Hi Aetixintro,
I'd be very dubious about making laws of nature infallible given the problem with Induction.
You have not given me an example of this phenomena called a 'reflection of gravity'?
a_UK

Hi again

You have not given me an example of this phenomena called a 'reflection of gravity'?

As a 'reflection of gravity' meaning an example of a law of nature, perhaps I can mention Snell's law describing the travel of light from one substance into another and thereof the implications.
As a law of nature I also mention thermodynamics. There should be many more to mention. I'm also aware of the many probabilistic theories within physics but I'm unable to mention any. -A.