>between well-grounded theory...
But how is the "dials" that the author describes, which "science" use to make the theory fit the facts of observation, more grounded?
But how is the "dials" that the author describes, which "science" use to make the theory fit the facts of observation, more grounded?
I think he is trying to say that the fewer things we need to tune the better, but if so that's trivially Occam's razor and a standard part of the scientific toolkit.
It also sounds as if he's discovered that PhDs are rewarded for work that makes their supervisor look good, not for original thinking that rocks the boat. You don't get the right to do that unless you have tenure at an Ivy (or foreign equivalent.)
The theory sounds interesting. I hope there are some testable predictions, and if there are, I hope they're tested.
Yea, that is what I was trying to say in the comment above ...