Underdetermination of theory by evidence suggests that for any body of evidence, multiple incompatible theories could equally explain it. Pierre Duhem noted that when an experiment contradicts a theory, we can always save the theory by modifying auxiliary hypotheses rather than the core. This seems to threaten rational theory choice—if evidence can't uniquely determine truth, what grounds scientific decisions? Pragmatists respond that non-empirical virtues like simplicity and fruitfulness legitimately guide choice.
It can be inferred from the text that
the relationship between empirical evidence and theoretical commitment may be more complex than simple verification or falsification
scientific theories can never be modified
all scientists reject the role of simplicity in theory choice
Duhem believed theories must be abandoned when experiments fail
Correct Answer: A
Choice A is the best answer. Evidence doesn't uniquely determine theory; auxiliary modifications and non-empirical virtues complicate the picture.
- Context clues: Multiple theories can fit evidence; modifications save theories; non-empirical virtues guide choice.
- Meaning: The evidence-theory relationship isn't simple verification/falsification.
- Verify: The threat to "rational theory choice" and pragmatist solutions show complexity.
💡 Strategy: When multiple factors beyond direct evidence influence theory, infer complex evidence-theory relations.
Choice B is incorrect because theories can be saved by "modifying auxiliary hypotheses." Choice C is incorrect because pragmatists invoke simplicity as legitimate. Choice D is incorrect because Duhem noted theories can be saved, not that they must be abandoned.