* [Problems](Problem.md) are epistemic constraints that force us to engage with the _logical and empirical consequences_ of our theories. A problem often arises when a theory T generates a consequence c such that: * c contradicts observation (empirical error), or * c contradicts another accepted theory (logical inconsistency), or * c fails to explain something it should (explanatory gap). So: problems are where content bites back—they are the price of having a theory with consequences. You’re exactly right to say: “Problems pose constraints, and constraints are intimately connected to content.” In formal terms: • The content of a theory $C(T)$ is the set of consequences $\{ c_1, c_2, \dots \}$ derivable from it. • A problem $P$ arises when one or more of those $c_i$ is: • refuted, • underdetermined, • or explanatorily inadequate. Therefore: • Problems arise from content, • Problems select against content, • And solving problems typically requires modifying content. Problems: The fact that were were surprised *implies* that we had some sort of nascent theory that was just violated. That observation did just refute that nascent theory. Thus, we must understand a refutation as a violation of any sort of theory (a counter example) that creates a *problem*—in other words a refutation basically is a problem.