Philosophical assumptions

What about the following criterion (which appears in Rabbi Kook's commentary on Rabbi Kellner) for correctness?
A thing is exemplary, it is more proven - when it is more general. That is, a principle, a line of thought, a method, that explains, in a logical sequence, more phenomena, – the more general it is, the more correct it is. The more phenomena are systematically explained - the more just the claim is than a claim that explains - according to its line of thought - fewer phenomena, and the certainty of its rightness - increases.

This is true, but when you get to the implementation there are a lot of reservations (how simple it is – Occam's razor, how reasonable it is, fits experience, various a priori assumptions, etc.), which excludes it from being a clear criterion.

Of course, it has nothing to do with Rabbi Kook and Rabbi Kelner. Ancient things.

So what if we take this criterion and add two additional criteria to it that will help: adaptability to the world and predictability? Are we better off now?

Absolutely, except now it's not philosophy but science.

And is that critical? I mean, isn't the main thing the fact that we have a good way to find out things? And it doesn't matter what field we're in exactly?

You asked how many people buy into philosophical assumptions. If you want to discuss something else, ask a different question.

I received