How can we call a scientific theory good if it is capable of being proved wrong? How can we decide when a rhetorical critic provides a reasonable interpretation? All theories involve trade-offs; no...

How can we call a scientific theory good if it is capable of being proved wrong? How can we decide when a rhetorical critic provides a reasonable interpretation? All theories involve trade-offs; no theory can meet every standard of quality equally well. Of the 12 criteria discussed, which two or three are most important to you? Which one is least important?