I am trying to understand the limits of Occam's Razor in theory choice. It seems that evaluating the "simplest" explanation often requires measuring which hypothesis demands the fewest modifications to our already-existing background beliefs.
Has there been work done on how parsimony might accumulate "epistemic debt" over time? Specifically, I am looking for literature exploring how the mandate for simplicity might restrict the genuine space of possibilities, causing researchers to iterate endlessly on a localized paradigm rather than undertaking the "expensive" epistemic shifts required to discover a more accurate, albeit highly complex, framework.
Who are the primary philosophers who have interrogated whether parsimony is actually antithetical to uncovering robust scientific truth in highly complex systems?