These reflections suggest what, to me, is a different way of resolving the whole debate. All generalizations are provisional. All generalizations are generalizations. Clearly true, but also clearly not helpful. All generalizations are unknowable.
All generalizations are false.
There is a kind of manifest absurdity in asserting a generalization that refutes itself. I don't know. We philosophers like to think of ourselves as the ultimate skeptics, but I'm not sure that this is the only way to think about it. And there are lots of other ways in which we can place non-arbitrary limits on gullibility. If, all other things being equal, one theory in some domain does all the work done by another theory in that domain, but the first is simpler than the latter, then the first is preferable to the latter.