Here is the sentence
... let us call the relevant, overall sets of scientific belief ‘theories’; different, conflicting theories are consistent with the data; the data exhaust the evidence for belief; therefore, there is no evidential reason to believe one of these theories as opposed to another.
What is the meaning of this (should I say subsentence?) 'the data exhaust the evidence for belief'?
Should that have been
'the data exhausts the evidence for belief'?
If so, I think what it means is that the existent data is completely fulfilling, or sufficient enough only for our belief. But then, it doesn't seem to fit the context of the argument as a whole. Maybe I'm missing something!
Here's the link from where the sentence is snipped - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/#UndTheDat