A scientist might do so usefully if she or he had a mechanism in mind that yielded a higher-order polynomial. Occam's razor is very useful for preventing the complexity of theory from growing at a rate greater than is justified by the data, but it is not any absolute guide to scientific truth. A more complicated theory may be better and can be suggested, but there is no reason to adopt it unless it makes testable predictions that the simpler one did not and at least some of those predictions are fulfilled. Hypothesis generation involves willing suspension of Occam's razor, since a good hypothesis will fit not only existing observations but will anticipate uncollected ones. Using Occam's razor slavishly would lead to hypotheses that explained existing data and nothing more.
Biologists often seem to polarize issues.
For example, take the ill-posed as well as polarizing question of whether competition or predation is the more important in structuring communities. Clearly both act, so this case is not one of mutually exclusive, alternative hypotheses. Nor are all possibilities included. Some biological oceanographic studies suffer a peculiar kind of myopia or chauvinism. Specialists in a given taxon or on a particular trophic or size group tend to do whole-water experiments or field observations and interpret the results as due principally or entirely to their pet group.