Question

Passage A
In the philosophy of science, the problem of underdetermination posits that for any finite body of observational data, there exist infinitely many mutually incompatible theoretical frameworks capable of accommodating that data. Faced with such empirically equivalent models, practicing scientists invariably invoke extra-empirical aesthetic criteria—such as theoretical simplicity, mathematical elegance, or conceptual symmetry—to adjudicate between rival hypotheses. Without these supplementary criteria, scientific consensus would be paralyzed. However, epistemologists must be careful not to conflate this methodological utility with ontological truth. The preference for "beautiful" or parsimonious theories functions essentially as a pragmatic heuristic. Simpler theories are mathematically more tractable, computationally less expensive, and practically easier to subject to rigorous falsification, making them highly efficient instruments for driving scientific progress. Yet, the seductive assumption that the universe itself operates according to the aesthetic sensibilities of the human mind is a subtle form of anthropocentric hubris. The undeniable historical success of deploying aesthetic criteria in theory selection does not furnish proof that the cosmos is fundamentally "elegant." Rather, it merely demonstrates that prioritizing conceptually manageable frameworks systematically accelerates the pace of our empirical investigations. Thus, aesthetic judgments in scientific methodology remain indispensable, but strictly as procedural conveniences. They are devoid of any metaphysical guarantee that human notions of beauty align with the objective fabric of reality.

Passage B
A recurring and dominant theme in the historical development of theoretical physics is the profound conviction among practitioners that mathematical beauty serves as a reliable harbinger of scientific truth. Luminaries from Paul Dirac to Albert Einstein have frequently subordinated immediate empirical corroboration to the pursuit of formal elegance, operating under the deep-seated assumption that a truly beautiful theory must necessarily mirror nature's underlying architecture. Contemporary critics often dismiss this reliance on aesthetic criteria as a mere psychological bias, or, at best, a pragmatic sorting mechanism for navigating overwhelmingly complex data sets when empirical evidence is inconclusive. But this skeptical reduction fundamentally fails to account for the "unreasonable effectiveness" of such criteria. Time and again, physical theories pursued primarily for their internal structural harmony—such as gauge symmetry formulations or the general theory of relativity—have subsequently yielded startlingly accurate empirical predictions that were entirely unanticipated by their creators. This consistent pattern of predictive triumph strongly implies that the correlation between human aesthetic intuition and physical law is far more than a coincidental heuristic. Instead, it suggests a profound ontological resonance: the fundamental structure of the universe is inherently ordered, logically pristine, and mathematically harmonious. Consequently, when scientists employ aesthetic criteria to resolve theoretical gridlock, they are not merely adopting an arbitrary procedural convenience; they are actively leveraging a fundamental congruence between human rational architecture and the cosmos.

While presenting contrasting philosophical interpretations of scientific methodology, both authors find common ground on certain descriptive facts. Which of the following principles regarding theory selection are endorsed by BOTH Passage A and Passage B? (Select all correct options)