Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:58:45.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Local Underdetermination in Historical Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Derek Turner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

David Lewis (1979) defends the thesis of the asymmetry of overdetermination: later affairs are seldom overdetermined by earlier affairs, but earlier affairs are usually overdetermined by later affairs. Recently, Carol Cleland (2002) has argued that since the distinctive methodologies of historical science and experimental science exploit different aspects of this asymmetry, the methodology of historical science is just as good, epistemically speaking, as that of experimental science. This paper shows, first, that Cleland's epistemological conclusion does not follow from the thesis of the asymmetry of overdetermination, because overdetermination (in Lewis's sense) is compatible with epistemic underdetermination. The paper also shows, contra Cleland, that there is at least one interesting sense in which historical science is epistemically inferior to experimental science, after all, because local underdetermination problems are more widespread in historical than in experimental science.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 72 , Issue 1 , January 2005 , pp. 209 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

I thank several anonymous reviewers for this journal whose constructive comments helped me to improve the paper. I also wish to thank Kate Kovenock, Michael Lynch, and Brian Ribeiro for letting me try some of these arguments out on them.

References

Alvarez, Luis W., et al. (1980), “Extraterrestrial Cause for the Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction”, Extraterrestrial Cause for the Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction 208:1095–1108.Google ScholarPubMed
Barlow, Connie (2000), The Ghosts of Evolution: Nonsensical Fruit, Missing Partners, and Other Ecological Anachronisms. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard (1985), “Lex orandi est lex credendi”, in Churchland, Paul M. and Hooker, Clifford A. (eds.), Images of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 3–34.Google Scholar
Cleal, Christopher J., and Thomas, Barry A. (1999), Plant Fossils: The History of Land Vegetation. Rochester, NY: The Boydell Press.Google Scholar
Cleland, Carol E. (2002), “Methodological and Epistemic Differences between Historical Science and Experimental Science”, Methodological and Epistemic Differences between Historical Science and Experimental Science 69 (3): 474–496..Google Scholar
Evans, David A. D. (2000), “Stratigraphic, Geochronological, and Paleomagnetic Constraints upon the Neoproterozoic Climate Paradox”, Stratigraphic, Geochronological, and Paleomagnetic Constraints upon the Neoproterozoic Climate Paradox 300:347–433.Google Scholar
Fisher, Paul E., et al. (2000), “Cardiovascular Evidence for an Intermediate or Higher Metabolic Rate in an Ornithischian Dinosaur”, Cardiovascular Evidence for an Intermediate or Higher Metabolic Rate in an Ornithischian Dinosaur 288:503–505.Google ScholarPubMed
Hacking, Ian (1983), Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, Paul, et al. (1998), “A Neoproterozoic Snowball Earth”, A Neoproterozoic Snowball Earth 281 (5381): 1342–1346..Google ScholarPubMed
Janzen, Daniel H., and Martin, Paul S. (1982), “Neotropical Anachronisms: The Fruits the Gomphotheres Ate”, Neotropical Anachronisms: The Fruits the Gomphotheres Ate 215:19–27.Google ScholarPubMed
Jenkins, Gregory S. (2000), “The ‘Snowball Earth’ and Precambrian Climate”, The ‘Snowball Earth’ and Precambrian Climate 288:975–976.Google Scholar
Kemp, Thomas S. (1999), Fossils and Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kirschvink, Joseph L. (1992), “Late Proterozoic Low-Latitude Global Glaciation: The Snowball Earth”, in J. William Schopf and Cornelis Klein (eds.), The Proterozoic Biosphere: A Multidisciplinary Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press, 51–52.Google Scholar
Kukla, André (1994), “Non-empirical Theoretical Virtues and the Argument from Underdetermination”, Non-empirical Theoretical Virtues and the Argument from Underdetermination 41:157–170.Google Scholar
Kukla, André (1996), “Does Every Theory Have Empirically Equivalent Rivals?”, Does Every Theory Have Empirically Equivalent Rivals? 44 (2): 137–166..Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry, and Leplin, Jarrett (1991), “Empirical Equivalence and Underdetermination”, Empirical Equivalence and Underdetermination 88:269–285.Google Scholar
Lewis, David (1979), “Counterfactual Dependence and Time’s Arrow”, Counterfactual Dependence and Time’s Arrow 13:455–476.Google Scholar
Norman, David (1988), The Prehistoric World of the Dinosaur. Greenwich, CT: Brompton Books Corporation.Google Scholar
Rowe, Timothy, McBride, E. F., and Sereno, Paul C. (2001), “Dinosaur with a Heart of Stone”, Dinosaur with a Heart of Stone 291: 783a.Google ScholarPubMed
Sober, Elliott (1988), Reconstructing the Past: Parsimony, Evolution, and Inference. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stanford, P. Kyle (2001), “Refusing the Devil’s Bargain: What Kind of Underdetermination Should We Take Seriously?”, Refusing the Devil’s Bargain: What Kind of Underdetermination Should We Take Seriously? 68 (Proceedings): S1–S12.Google Scholar
Thulborn, Richard A. (1990), Dinosaur Tracks. New York: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Jeffrey A., and Carrano, Matthew T. (1999), “Titanosaurs and the Origin of ‘Wide-Gauge’ Trackways: A Biomechanical and Systematic Perspective on Sauropod Locomotion”, Titanosaurs and the Origin of ‘Wide-Gauge’ Trackways: A Biomechanical and Systematic Perspective on Sauropod Locomotion 25 (2): 252–267..Google Scholar