Mind · Inference
EvidenceUnderdetermination
The evidence in hand fits two or more explanations about equally, so it cannot decide between them
Definition
Mechanism
Two or more explanations each account for all the evidence considered, and each piece of that evidence is about as expected under one explanation as under the others. The evidence then gives no reason to prefer any of them: a preference based on simplicity, prior belief or familiarity may still be reasonable, but it is not support from this evidence. More evidence of the same kind leaves their standing unchanged, as re-reading logs that fit both 'the request never arrived' and 'it arrived but was not logged' cannot separate them. The state is relative to the evidence considered, and an observation the explanations predict differently can end it. Evidence that clearly favours one explanation over the others is not an instance.
Invariants
- Two or more named explanations each account for all of the evidence considered.
- That evidence is about as expected under each explanation, so a preference among them by simplicity, prior belief or familiarity is not support from it.
Risks
Failure modes
Preference read as finding
an explanation preferred for its simplicity or familiarity is reported as what the evidence showed.
More of the same
further evidence of the kind already in hand is gathered as if it could separate the explanations.
Underdetermination read as permanent
the explanations are treated as indistinguishable in principle when an observation exists that they predict differently.
Relationships
Root pattern: builds on nothing in this library.
Used by
References
Rival explanations call for the same next action, so it can be taken while the cause stays open
Find an observation that rival explanations predict differently before gathering more evidence that fits them all