As I see it, the unique criterion of the validity of a theory in empirical sciences, say, physics, is that the theory should produce results in line with our observation of the physical world, ranging from our direct visual observation of nature to experiments involving possibly, and increasingly so, complex installations, machines, apparatuses and sometimes a large team of scientists working months to agree on an interpretation of the results. Do you agree with this presentation of this criterion, including with the suggestion that it is not only the main but that it is also the only criterion admissible in empirical sciences like physics. If you think that there are other criteria necessary to assessing the validity of a theory in empirical sciences, what are they? EB
Consistency with other theories that impinge on it. It is possible to imagine a theory for explaining one class of phenomena that works well as it stands, but has implications for other theories that lead to irreconcilable contradictions. This does not necessarily rule out the utility of the theory, but raises questions about it that reduce one's faith in it.
