) What if we have two or more ideas? This one is easy. There is a particular criticism you can use to refute all the remaining theories. It’s the same every time so there’s not much to remember. It goes like this: idea A ought to tell me why B and C and D are wrong. If it doesn’t, it could be better! So that’s a flaw. Bye bye A. On to idea B: if B is so great, why hasn’t it explained to me what’s wrong with A, C and D? Sorry B, you didn’t answer all my questions, you’re not good enough. Then we come to idea C and we complain that it should have been more help and it wasn’t. And D is gone too since it didn’t settle the matter either. And that’s it. Each idea should have settled the matter by giving us criticisms of all its rivals. They didn’t. So they lose. So whenever there is a stalemate or a tie with two or more ideas then they all fail.
This seems absurd, since an explanation like “Phlogiston!”, which can “explain” everything because it is a mysterious answer, would pass your test but a legitimate explanation wouldn’t.
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?
This seems absurd, since an explanation like “Phlogiston!”, which can “explain” everything because it is a mysterious answer, would pass your test but a legitimate explanation wouldn’t.
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.