Underdetermination and Paradigm Shifts

intermediate2 min readscience · philosophy

Scientific hypotheses can guide inquiry before the available evidence settles between them. Nisbett discusses the role of hunches and cultural context in paradigm changes while rejecting the conclusion that facts are merely arbitrary agreements.

THE IDEA

Underdetermination and Paradigm Shifts

Science is based not only on evidence and well-justified theories—faith and hunches may cause scientists to ignore established scientific hypotheses and agreed-upon facts. Several years ago, the literary agent John Brockman asked scores of scientists and public figures to tell him about something they believed that they couldn’t prove—and he published their responses in a book.4 In many instances, an individual’s most important work was guided by hypotheses that could never be proved. As laypeople we have no choice but to do the same.

The paradigms that underlie a given body of scientific work, as well as those that form the basis for technologies, industries, and commercial enterprises, are subject to change without notice. These changes are often initially “underdetermined” by the evidence. Sometimes the new paradigm exists in uneasy partnership with the old, and sometimes it utterly replaces the old.

Different cultural practices and beliefs can produce different scientific theories, paradigms, and even forms of reasoning. The same is true for different business practices.

Quasi-rational practices by scientists, and cultural influences on belief systems and reasoning patterns, may have encouraged postmodernists and deconstructionists to press the view that there are no facts, only socially agreed-upon interpretations of reality. They clearly don’t live their lives as if they believed this, but they nevertheless expended a colossal amount of university teaching and “research” effort promulgating these nihilistic views. Did these teachings contribute to the rejection of scientific findings in favor of personal prejudices so common today?

When to use it

When evaluating competing scientific theories, consider the non-evidential factors (faith, hunches, cultural context) that may influence acceptance.
In business, recognize that paradigms underlying your industry can shift without clear evidence, requiring adaptive strategies.
In education, understand that students' cultural backgrounds affect their reasoning, so teaching methods should account for diverse perspectives.
In policy-making, be aware that scientific consensus may be underdetermined, so political or cultural biases can improperly sway decisions.

FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE

In practice

John Brockman's 'What We Believe but Cannot Prove'

Scores of scientists and public figures were asked to share something they believed but couldn't prove. Many noted that their most important work was guided by unprovable hypotheses, illustrating the role of faith and hunches in science.

✳

A MOMENT TO REFLECT

Put it to work.

Think of a scientific belief you hold that you cannot prove. How does it influence your work or everyday decisions?
How might cultural factors shape your acceptance of a particular scientific paradigm or theory?
Have you ever observed a paradigm shift in a field you know? What evidence (or lack thereof) initially supported the new paradigm?