ABSTRACT
Underdetermination is a central issue not only in the philosophy of science, but in other areas of analytic philosophy as well. Underdetermination claims are at least often adduced to argue that our epistemic position vis-à-vis a given part of reality is less impressive than we would have hoped or thought it was, and in any event there is almost invariably a lot at stake in arguments concerning some underdetermination claim(s). Some well-known philosophical debates can be regarded as turning, at bottom, on whether or not a given underdetermination claim must be accepted, and, concomitantly, on whether or not we must resign ourselves to some (typically very) modest epistemic position concerning whatever part of reality is at issue.
