Intuitive

  Let's say there was this amazing, unique and complex phenomenon never
before seen in human history, that was regarded as hugely important and
transformational, but not at all well understood and so important to get
a deep explanation about.

Further examination revealed that in terms of the complexity and
uniqueness the phenomenon clustered in two places: in terms of its
physical manifestation - the regularities, reccurrent themes,
organization, approaches - basically everything. All this and then its
evolution in time as well. The whole thing, its parts its whole, as a
suite of traits, as a history: in the overwhelming majority was both
complex and unique - not seen before in human history.

The other cluster was basically everything describing its product, its
productivity, its influence, its byproducts, and so on. This was also
complex and unique in human history, and then amazing on top of that as
well.

So thinking about the various possibilities of how all this was
explained, what I think I am comfortable to say is that, given this
complex uniqueness characterized the underlying suite of traits, and
then shows up again in its product and influence also complex and unique
(if anything more so), far and away the most intuitive - and reasonable,
and most promising, hypothesis would be that the underlying unique
complexity is the major causal force giving rise to the unique and
complex outcomes. I'd say there'd be every reason to put this at the top
of the list of the most promising prospects and exploring that would
reasonably be the first port of call.

Where would others here stand on this matter? Do you see it the same? Do
you agree it's certainly intuitive and reasonable. I should think it
would also be the best explanation in the popperian sense too. Or is the
intuitiveness a worry in your books? Is it a reason to look elsewhere,
for something more counter-intuitive? I'm being serious.

What about Popper? It's pretty clear I'm talking about something that is
just like Science. Just like a process of philosophizing science.

Or if let's say you don't experience my view so strongly as I seem to
be. Let's say for you this would be priority 2, or priority 3. That
would be fine. But then what about the possibility you or someone else
would regard this explanation as so unpromising that they didn't put it
on their to-do list at all. In fact didn't regard any direct examination
of the phenomenon as useful at all, and didn't put that on his to-do
list either.

Would that be rational? Would that be appropriate? Yes, it's what Popper
appears to have done, or something reasonably approximating to that. But
why? Or am I wrong and badly needing putting out of my misery, in which
case please let's get it over with :O)