Changes

|Prehistory=The question of "conclusive" theory assessment is historically closely related to the the question of scientific underdetermination. In brief, scientific theories are underdetermined when several competing theories are able to adequately explain the same empirical phenomenon. The question of scientific underdeterminism is not identical to the question of conclusive theory assessment but they are related. If theory selection were a deterministic process, then there would be no possibility that any theory selection process could result in an inconclusive assessment. Only if theory selection were underdetermined by the empirical evidence, would

Historically, the accepted view concerning theory acceptance was scientific determinism. This is the belief that theory assessment is entirely determined by the empirical evidence that confronts science. [[Larry Laudan]] claims to be able to trace the concept of scientific determinism back to [[Gottfreid Leibniz]] but it is likely that Plato and Aristotle both held this belief. [[CiteRef::Laudan (1984) |pp. 26-39, 43-45, 62]] The logical positivists of the early twentieth century also believed in scientific determinism. In modern philosophy of science, [[Karl Popper]] and [[Imre Lakatos]] believed in scientific determinism. In the present day, physicist [[Stephen Weinberg]] believes in scientific determinism.[[CiteRef::Weinberg (2003)]] [[Thomas Kuhn]] pointed out that theory assessment does not always produce a conclusive outcome.[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1977)]] The later [[Larry Laudan]] agreed with this assessment. [[CiteRef::Laudan (1984)]] In his reticulated model of science, theory choice is underdetermined because scientific theories and methods underdetermine each other. According to Laudan, because the results of theory choice is determined by the methods employed at the time, and because the methods employed at the time are influenced by the accepted theories, the evolution of science could vary greatly depending on what order theories and methods are accepted. James Robert Brown agrees.[[CiteRef::Brown (2001)]]  While the question of scientific underdeterminism is not identical to the question of conclusive theory assessment, the questions are related. If theory selection were a deterministic process, then there would be no possibility that any theory selection process could result in an inconclusive assessment. Only if theory selection were underdetermined by the empirical evidence, would an inconclusive theory assessment even be possible.