>Q-D underdetermination asserts that if two theories are equivalent >in their empirical entailments then some other criteria needs to be >used to compare explanatory virtues etc.
No, that's Q's empirical equivalence thesis. The Q-D thesis just holds that theories are interconnected networks of propositions, and you can hold true any one of them (even in the face of empirical "refutation") by making appropriate adjustmemnts elsewhere. If the main results of the >LTV and or the LoV whether in a quantitative-qualitative >combination or relying singly on quantitative or qualitative >approaches adds nothing to what can be achieved in terms of >*explanation* without them, then why shouldn't Ockam's razor >apply--to concepts, not entities? Quite. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
