Unfotunately, the norms of our discipline are set up to emulate the Pyrrhonian skeptics, who thought (to simplify a lot), that we should bring alternative views into argumentative balance. The easiest way to make a name for oneself in philosophy is to invent an entirely new view or at least be one of the lonely defenders of an odd view, not because it is true or superior to its alternatives, but because these non-mainstream views are also severely underdeveloped. It is comparatively easy to improve them further. That is a striking difference between how philosophy and science operate.