عنوان مقاله [English]
One of the most important arguments against scientific realism is underdetermination, so realists should address the argument satisfactorily and give an appropriate response to it. Underdetermination divides into holist and contrastive forms; in this article, we will only deal with the contrastive form. By examining different responses given to the argument, it will turn out that while the argument is successful in some cases, there are cases where they are not satisfactory. Specifically, two formulations of Newtonian mechanics are examined, which is an important case of underdetermination, but cannot be accounted for by those responses. We argue that the appropriate option is ontic structural realism that is capable of resolving this underdetermination. We also need to emphasize that ontic structural realism is an empirical and a posteriori position, meaning that the truth of its claim must be examined on a case-by-case basis.