Another kind of underdetermination
After my old set of thinking almost shriveled up and died as it collapsed into some kind of pragmatism, I've been trying to think of some way to maybe integrating the brutal new with the crushed old. I try to link CC and pragmatism by linking up their common traits. This is when I happen to spot something pragmatically-related called underdetermination. Please stifle your groans until after you've finished reading. Thanks.
After looking at underdetermination I want to be able to say the following kind of thing:
"Various existing philosophical system exist for a reason (i.e. there are reasons for people to believe in things)- Those systems didn't come out of nowhere and all of them underdetermine each other to a certain degree even if the extent can become small. If there is indeed some degree of underdetermination among all systems, then there is room for different solutions and implementations of solutions to the same sets of problems."
What I'm talking about here is not some kind of scientific underdetermination but a kind of methodological underdetermination where two "competing methods" could conceivably work "almost equally well." Sure, one method is sure to work a little or a lot better than the next, but with "practical underdetermination" in terms of the results of implementation there would be room for multiple methodologies in a single problem.
In sum, there are indeed better ways of doing things. However, there are indeed better wayS (that's plural) of doing things. If this is any kind of "real" underdetermination, it would be a weak/variable and not strong/uniform underdetermination.
Practical examples:
1. Two different understandings and methodologies in dealing with disease of the human body: Western medicine and Chinese acupressure
http://www.channel4.com/health/microsites/C/comp_medicine/acupuncture.html
2. Medications (Read the first paragraph of each. They basically say "We don't really know how it works, but it works so we're using it")
http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/dival_cp.htm
http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/lithium_cp.htm
After looking at underdetermination I want to be able to say the following kind of thing:
"Various existing philosophical system exist for a reason (i.e. there are reasons for people to believe in things)- Those systems didn't come out of nowhere and all of them underdetermine each other to a certain degree even if the extent can become small. If there is indeed some degree of underdetermination among all systems, then there is room for different solutions and implementations of solutions to the same sets of problems."
What I'm talking about here is not some kind of scientific underdetermination but a kind of methodological underdetermination where two "competing methods" could conceivably work "almost equally well." Sure, one method is sure to work a little or a lot better than the next, but with "practical underdetermination" in terms of the results of implementation there would be room for multiple methodologies in a single problem.
In sum, there are indeed better ways of doing things. However, there are indeed better wayS (that's plural) of doing things. If this is any kind of "real" underdetermination, it would be a weak/variable and not strong/uniform underdetermination.
Practical examples:
1. Two different understandings and methodologies in dealing with disease of the human body: Western medicine and Chinese acupressure
http://www.channel4.com/health/microsites/C/comp_medicine/acupuncture.html
2. Medications (Read the first paragraph of each. They basically say "We don't really know how it works, but it works so we're using it")
http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/dival_cp.htm
http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/lithium_cp.htm