My understanding of Quine's view of holist underdetermination and how it connects to his holist view of science is summarized well by this quote:
The totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs, from the most casual matters of geography and history to the profoundest laws of atomic physics or even of pure mathematics and logic, is a man-made fabric which impinges on experience only along the edges. Or, to change the figure, total science is like a field of force whose boundary conditions are experience. A conflict with experience at the periphery occasions readjustments in the interior of the field. But the total field is so underdetermined by its boundary conditions, experience, that there is much latitude of choice as to what statements to reevaluate in the light of any single contrary experience. No particular experiences are linked with any particular statements in the interior of the field, except indirectly through considerations of equilibrium affecting the field as a whole.
Meanwhile contrastive underdetermination:
Questions the ability of the evidence to confirm any given hypothesis against alternatives, and the central focus of discussion in this connection (equally often regarded as “the” problem of underdetermination) concerns the character of the supposed alternatives. (SEP)
It's my understanding that these both stem from the general idea of underdetermination, but bring up relatively different points. Quine's holist view of belief is that the principle is open to us to revise any of our beliefs, even those concerning logic and math. That "the beliefs we hold at any given time are linked in an interconnected web, which encounters our sensory experience only at its periphery."
So my question is, does Quine's holist view of science stemming from holist underdetermination contrast at all with the views held by Duhem and others that focused on contrastive underdetermination? What would Duhem think of the idea that we could revise our views around logic just to better fit the "web?" It seems to me like they're mostly focused on addressing different examples and focuses, but I can't see how they might be incompatible.