[ratorx]

> requires fewer predictions to discover

I don’t think that is implied. It was discovered first, but that doesn’t mean it is necessarily simpler or required less data to discover. Take Newton/Leibniz calculus for example as a clear example of similar discovery time, leading to the same result but using different approaches. Leibniz started after Newton technically, and yet is the preferred way.

Especially if theory B is equivalent to theory A, then using it as a replacement for theory A seems perfectly fine (well as long as there are other benefits).

In some cases it might be pointless though from a scientific standpoint because the goal is “not-yet-known” predictions, but if viewed through a mathematical lens, then it seems like a valid area of study.

Maybe the process behind creating theory A is more generalisable towards future scientific discovery, but that would make the process worthwhile, not the theory.