[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think meta-evidence is involved.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's actually a decent term for the principle underlying Occam's razor.

There's no direct evidence that any particular unfalsifiable theory is wrong. But there is some evidence that where two theories are equal in their explanatory power, the goofier one has a lesser chance of being correct than the simpler one. Not always, but more often than not.

This latter point is supported by observational experience. It is a sort of meta-evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]
As I pointed out before, this isn't true. there are no cases of examples where two theories don't produce different predictions about the world, yet one has been shown to be false.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't clear. By "explanatory power" I mean that they explain things we already know.

I don't mean that the two theories make all the same predictions. For one to be false and the other to be true, obviously they have to make different predictions.

My assertion is that when two theories have the same explanatory power, the simpler one tends to make better predictions. Usually, but not always.