From what I understand, there is a debate in epistemology / philosophy of science regarding the concept of simplicity ("Occam's Razor"). Some hold that there is a justifiable basis for the concept in the sense that it is an indicator of which of a set of possible theories is more likely to be true. Others dispute this and say that there is no justified basis for simplicity arguments in this sense.

In a recent conversation I made the following assertion (more or less):

Those who say that simplicity arguments are unjustified are actually saying that we can never really know the truth about any theory at all, since there are always an infinite number of alternative and more complex theories that account equally for the data. The best we can do is to falsify a theory (as Karl Popper proposed), but beyond that we can never say anything about whether a theory is true.

So (I said), we have only one of two choices. We can either allow for simplicity arguments, or we can give up on ever saying anything positive about the truth (beyond falsifying a few of the infinite possible theories).

Is this correct?