Given what you know about criteria for theory choice in science, such as predictive power, mechanism, fruitfulness, simplicity, and coherence, is there anything other than evidence that scientists use in determining whether to accept a theory? Should there be?
Are simpler theories more likely to be true? Is Ockham’s Razor always a good rule of scientific reasoning?
well i dont think that the scientific theory should have another theory. they have enough people to get there opionos and they dont need any more
There are at any rate twelve significant temperances of good speculations: evidential precision, causal sufficiency, illustrative profundity, inside consistency, inward soundness, widespread intelligibility, excellence, straightforwardness, unification, strength, productivity, and materialness. These excellencies are best grouped into four classes: evidential, coherential, tasteful, and diachronic. Every ethicalness class contains at any rate three excellencies that consecutively follow a rehashing example of dynamic divulgence and extension. Systematizing the hypothetical ethics as such explains every goodness and recommends how they may have an organized and combined job in principle development and assessment over the controls—with remittance for discipline explicit alteration. A casual and adaptable rationale of hypothesis decision is really taking shape here. Evidential exactness (experimental fit), as indicated by my systematization, is certifiably not a to a great extent separated quality of good speculations, as certain (pragmatists and antirealists) have portrayed it. Or maybe, it bears multifaceted connections, establishing huge epistemic ensnarements, with other hypothetical excellencies.
In general the simpler theories are more likely to be true, however that doesn’t make them necessarily true.