How to decide between competing explanations and theories

[Giulia]

As I understand it, this article discusses how to evaluate competing explanations and theories. It uses the Mandela Effect, the phenomenon where many people share a false memory, as an example.

The article contrasts two explanations for the Mandela Effect:

Parallel Worlds: This theory suggests we live in a multiverse and the Mandela Effect results from people somehow accessing memories from an alternate reality.

Cognitive Biases and Memory Mechanisms: This theory explains the Mandela Effect through well-documented psychological phenomena, like memory reconstruction and social influence.

The article then introduces five principles for evaluating theories:

- Empirical Adequacy: Does the theory fit the available evidence?
- Falsifiability: Can the theory be disproven through observation?
- Parsimony/Simplicity: Is the theory simpler, with fewer assumptions?
- Explanatory Power: Does the theory explain a range of phenomena?
- Fertility/Fruitfulness: Does the theory lead to new research and experiments?

By applying these principles, the article argues that the cognitive biases explanation is more likely than the parallel worlds explanation. The cognitive biases explanation has more empirical evidence, is falsifiable, simpler, explains more phenomena, and leads to more research.

The article concludes by suggesting this approach to theory selection can be used to evaluate explanations in many areas.

In my opinion, the parallel-world theory is more credible and reliable.

[Giulia]

I think that, since we are all extensions of Source Energy, we all have the same source of information.