A Case for Underdetermination: Consequences of Opposing the Distinction between Quantum Mechanics and Bohmian Mechanics

The paper critiques John D. Norton's arguments against the underdetermination thesis in scientific theory, particularly focusing on Quantum mechanics (QM) and Bohmian mechanics (BM). The author questions Norton's assumptions about theory and highlights potential flaws in his reasoning regarding QM and BM's relationship. By examining the implications of Norton's position, the paper aims to demonstrate that it is possible to argue against the equivalence of QM and BM based on Norton's own criteria, ultimately challenging his stance without defending the underdetermination thesis itself.