Under Determination Argument Against Realism

According to the Under Determination argument, it is nearly impossible to collect all data. It is impossible to collect all data because even if science finds a way to collect all data in the future, there are things in the past that cannot be checked on. It is an argument against realism which states that different theories though consistent with the entities of the observable aspects of a theory, they may differ on the unobservable aspect. This damages the position of realism because the data does not determine one specific theory. This is so because there could be several theories that explain your data perfectly, but you would not be able to know which one is the correct theory. The antirealism position is winning in this sense because even if you believe your one theory to be the right one, there is no way of knowing you are

In the laws of Newtonian mechanics, an object traveling in a straight line at the same speed is identical to being at rest. Therefore, Newton’s theory of universe at motion would make the same predictions as his theory of the universe at rest. Though we now know this theory to be incorrect, it is a good example to explain how theories can be empirically equivalent while possessing different claims. This is an argument against realism because it shows how any accepted theory could have competing theories that are empirically equivalent yet different. If theories are empirically equivalent, then they are identical in the strength supported by the evidence. So the choice between the accepted theory and the rival theory is arbitrary. This is a strong argument by the antirealists as they bring up a powerful point of not believing in the truth of accepted theories because there are other theories which are equally well-supported in evidence. Going back to the electrons theory, a realist scientist may have accepted the theory of electrons to be real because it may have developed