The problem I have with that is something related to Occam's Razor. While it's traditionally simplified to "the simplest answer is usually the correct one," it isn't quite the case. It's just easier to test and either discard or confirm a theory if there are fewer moving parts to it. You should be conservative with adding new parameters and concepts, because those would need the same sort of testing and confirmation. This is incidentally why, though people try to give a "simple" explanation regarding unknown phenomena by claiming something supernatural or otherworldly (such as someone using demons or ghosts or aliens as an explanation), are actually far more complicated than other answers, because it would require a complete changing of our understanding of things like physics and energy and so on to account for those phenomena.
Actually, the reason why people use occam's razor wrong is because they don't know that the options being tested are supposed to be in a sequence of subsets: guessing you're going to see a blue car today gives you better odds than guessing you're going to see a blue ford today, because if you fulfill B you also fulfill A, but there are ways to fulfill A without B.
That's why using the Occam's Razor as a means to choose between 2 possible alternatives is usually a wrong use of the theory.