The simplest explanation consistent with the established facts is most likely to be true and must be accepted as the best explanation.
Of course, that is a statement rather than an argument. On what ground are we to say that the "simplest" explanation is most realistic?
It's an entirely arbitrary assumption.
Newton's laws of motion are straightforwad enough. They are easily expressed, and adding anything to them muddies them. Kepler's laws of planetary motion? Likewise.
For real complexity -- and doubletalk -- try astrology. It makes astrophysics and relativity look simple by contrast.
... or Quantum Mechanics.
The idea that the universe "out there" must be in some way "simple" (and to a human - often culture-specific - notion of simplicity at that) is a completely
a priori assumption which should not have a great deal of influence over either science or the social 'sciences' (though I admit it does not have some value in the shaping hypothesis).
Poll
