Editing Scientific theory (section)

===Other criteria===

In addition, most scientists prefer to work with a theory that meets the following qualities:
* It can be subjected to minor adaptations to account for new data that do not fit it perfectly, as they are discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_20 |title=Even theories change |work=Understanding Science |accessdate=2021-02-12 }}</ref>
* It is among the most parsimonious explanations, economical in the use of proposed entities or explanatory steps as per [[Occam's razor]]. This is because for each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with [[ad hoc hypotheses|''ad hoc'' hypotheses]] to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more [[test method|testable]].<ref name="fn_(109)">{{cite book |orig-year=2004 |year=2010 |author=Alan Baker |chapter=Simplicity |title=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |chapter-url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/ |publisher=Stanford University |place=California |issn=1095-5054 }}</ref><ref name="fn_(110)">{{cite journal |year=2008 |vauthors=Courtney A, Courtney M |title=Comments Regarding "On the Nature Of Science" |journal=Physics in Canada |volume=64 |issue=3 |pages=7–8|arxiv=0812.4932 }}</ref><ref name="fn_(114)">Elliott Sober, Let's Razor Occam's Razor, pp. 73–93, from Dudley Knowles (ed.) Explanation and Its Limits, Cambridge University Press (1994).</ref>