The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[John 6IX Breezy]

if there is only one predictive theory, that is the one that is accepted [emphasis added], at least until another comes up. . . .
If there is no observational difference between the two, the one that makes more assumptions about non-observable entities is the one that is dis-favored [emphasis added].

Not to keep barraging your premises, but I see a lot of problems arising from this underlying Science as a Courtroom metaphor. So I would ask―accepted by who and for what purpose? Clearly, the diversity of competing theories that exists in science ought to show that nothing is ever accepted in such a manner, much less by everyone. Theories are just tools―they require our understanding not our credence.

Lastly, I would avoid evaluative terms like disfavorable, because why should anyone care what someone else doesn't find favorable? Useful theories can be inconvenient, complicated, and unfavorable.