Are rival theories of smoking underdetermined?

Some empirically minded philosophers of science argue that the evidence should choose the best theory from among theoretical rivals. However, the evidence may not speak clearly, a problem of ‘underdetermination of theory by data’. We examine this problem in a concrete setting, rival theories of smoking behaviour. We investigate whether several uncontested pieces of empirical evidence allow us to choose between two competing theoretical perspectives on smoking, rational choice and non-rational choice, respectively. Next, we develop a more reŽ ned taxonomy of smoking theories, and consider the consequences for theory testing. F inally, we examine some normative aspects of theory choice involving the appropriate scope of government action.