If something can explain everything (by not being adapted to addressing any particular problem) we can criticize it for doing just that. So we dispense with it.
In that case, you seem to be saying “dispense with a hypothesis if it can’t explain everything, and also dispense with it if it does explain everything.” How both of these can be legitimate reasons for dismissal?
If something can explain everything (by not being adapted to addressing any particular problem) we can criticize it for doing just that. So we dispense with it.
In that case, you seem to be saying “dispense with a hypothesis if it can’t explain everything, and also dispense with it if it does explain everything.” How both of these can be legitimate reasons for dismissal?
If it doesn’t explain everything (relevant to some problem you are trying to address), improve it.
If it explains everything vacuously, reject it.