How to assess the explanation

Technical we cannot (and will not be able to) create the perfect explanation. But we can create a better explanation than before, --- accordingly, the best of all possible ones now. This is the "evolutionary" aspect of our epistemology.

To understand that the current explanation is better than the previous one (or discover the opposite), we will be guided by the following criteria:

Grounding

The closer to reality you formulate each position of your explanation, the better. The more grounded you describe, the less risk of blurring and overlooking something important.

Grounding --- is the operation where you formulate everything that can be formulated in narrow classes, in narrow classes, present examples for everything that can be exemplified, and speak simple words for what can be said in simple words. As a result, the explanation at the conception level becomes very easy to understand.

Explanation at relevant levels

Usually, this means detail, and we strive to bring the smallest objects of interest to us in the explanation to avoid errors like "it somehow works there, but how, we do not know (possibly does not work)". The more black the box is, the less we understand in it by trial and error. The more transparent it is, the more we understand and the more useful answers we can extract from there.

We want more detailed details, --- then the "broken" explanation will be easier to fix by replacing one small detail. If there are few details, then the breakage of one will break the explanation as a whole, and you will have to make a new one.

The more detailed the explanation, the more relevant predictions it gives because it mentions more objects and relationships. We want it not only to explain previous observations but also to predict future events.

But it is also important not to abandon the explanation of macro-level (levels), especially if they are inconvenient or unusual.

Disprovable by many different paths

We must be able to confidently answer the question "under what development of events in the world will I abandon this explanation?".

The more such answers there are, the better. If there are no such answers at all, then the explanation is considered unfalsifiable and very weak.

For example: I believe there is a little demon in the camera. If I open the camera now and do not find the little demon, I will abandon this explanation.

If there are many ways to repudiate the explanation (impossible worlds excluded by the explanation), and it is still alive, still unrefuted, then it is considered strong, --- it means those worlds do not come true, it means nobody observes that evidence, it means what is said in the explanation is true.

The explanation must tell us which worlds are possible and impossible

For example: there is a little demon in the camera that draws pictures. It makes a world impossible in which I open the camera and do not see anything there. And I open the camera and see nothing --- the explanation is refuted. This is a normal explanation, and we learn if it is bad, only when I open the camera.

But! I'll add a little detail: if I open the camera, I won't see the little demon there because it becomes invisible and intangible in the presence of a human. Now this is initially a weak explanation --- I have not left possibilities for its refutation.

Makes fewer or the same number of assumptions compared to the old explanation, with other equal or superior qualities

What more fundamental pieces of the worldview/beliefs does this explanation involve? Do they need to be proven separately?

Ability to solve the problem of the old explanation

Valid criticism and arguments against the old explanation. The ability to close the holes and remove inconsistencies and voids from the old explanation. In fact, this is why we started to create a new explanation --- because the old one was not satisfactory, there was some problem. It is trivial, of course, but we need to check, is the problem solved? Is it solved by the new explanation? Or is the new explanation created, and the problem remains?

This often raises the question --- if the old explanation was bad, why did we use it? The answer --- because there was nothing better. Look at the world around you and try to explain it. You see a lot of holes and imperfections, --- but you don't have another explanation. But if it existed and if it covered these holes, you would use it.