Philosophers have usually highlighted how the weakness and paucity of historical evidence underdetermine the choice between rival historical explanations. Focusing underdetermination on the link between theory and evidence comes, I argue, with three assumptions: (a) competing hypotheses are easy to generate, (b) investigators agree on the constitution and interpretation of the evidence and (c) a plurality of hypotheses is a useful evil to reach consensus. The last assumption implies that the sustained coexistence of incompatible hypotheses is considered as a scientific failure. I argue that this negative vision of sustained disagreement has monistic undertones. By drawing from a case study in evolutionary biology, this paper defends a form of scientific pluralism. Firstly, I show that underdetermination is not only found at the inferential level but also (a) at the level of the constitution and interpretation of the evidence, (b) on the choice of investigative scaffolds and (c) when interpreting background theories. Because of that, competing hypotheses exhibit a degree of methodological incommensurability. While catastrophic from a monistic standpoint, I defend that scientific pluralism gives a different, and I think richer, account of such situations. On the plus side, competing approaches benefit from their sustained coexistence and interaction. I argue that this generates direct and indirect epistemic goods independently of whether the controversy is solved. Scientific pluralism also shifts our attention from achieving consensus to managing disagreement. The challenge becomes to maintain the conditions for fruitful interactions in a community with incommensurable approaches and heterogeneous expertise.

中文翻译：

---

关于不确定性的一元论和多元论方法：进化微生物学案例研究

哲学家们通常强调历史证据的弱点和稀缺性如何决定在对立的历史解释之间做出选择。我认为，将不确定性集中在理论和证据之间的联系上，我认为有三个假设：(a) 相互竞争的假设很容易产生，(b) 调查人员就证据的构成和解释达成一致，以及 (c) 多个假设是达成共识的有益之恶。最后一个假设意味着不相容假设的持续共存被视为科学失败。我认为这种持续分歧的负面看法具有一元论的意味。通过借鉴进化生物学的案例研究，本文捍卫了一种科学多元化的形式。首先，我表明，不确定性不仅存在于推理层面，而且还存在于（a）证据构成和解释层面，（b）调查支架的选择和（c）在解释背景理论时。因此，相互竞争的假设表现出一定程度的方法论不可通约性。虽然从一元论的角度来看是灾难性的，但我捍卫科学多元化对这种情况给出了不同的，我认为更丰富的解释。从好的方面来说，相互竞争的方法受益于它们持续的共存和互动。我认为这会产生直接和间接的认知善，与争议是否得到解决无关。科学多元化也将我们的注意力从达成共识转移到管理分歧。