In an email from Mark Kuperberg re ongoing discussion of Inquiry as Emergence: Product and Contributor, posted with Mark's permission ....

Under the assumption that we can all use a little guidance, I would like to suggest a homework assignment for Paul for next week:

Paul, there seems to be no relationship between your two concepts of what makes a theory (or a story, which for me is the exact same thing) good:

a) "It is less wrong"
b) "It is generative"

I am totally behind the "less wrong" concept, but it seems to bear no relationship to generativity. We can all think of stories (like the Bible) that have been very generative but are also very wrong. With a little work, I am sure that we can think of theories that in their sphere of relevance have not changed much since their creation (so they are the least wrong story in their field), but have not generated improvements or new theories.

So, please explain.