Klodian Coko (University of Western Ontario)
I argue that the epistemic strategy of multiple determination (i.e. the epistemic strategy of using multiple, independent procedures to establish "the same" result) is not a form of robustness. There are many characteristics that distinguish multiple determination from robustness. They are all, however, related to the same core difference: whereas the different robustness variants can be considered as involving some invariance to different types of perturbations, multiple determination cannot. Multiple determination is better distinguished by its ability to support a specific type of a no coincidence argument. Namely, it would be an improbable coincidence for independent procedures to establish the same result and yet for the result to be incorrect. No such argument can be construed from invariance to perturbations
