I agree with most of what Mr Pott says, but I'm not sure what was objectionable in SuccessCase's original post, laden as it was with qualifiers such as 'a pretty good sign'. Observing a 'pretty good sign' is a prelude to the formal 'form a hypothesis and test it' scientific method.
'Quality' too is as fuzzy a term as 'cool' - an author of computer manuals wrote a book about it in the seventies. Perhaps 'fit for purpose(s)' would be closer to what we're getting at.
Pirsig became greatly troubled by the existence of more than one workable hypothesis to explain a given phenomenon, and, indeed, that the number of hypotheses appeared unlimited. He could not find any way to reduce the number of hypotheses—he became perplexed by the role and source of hypothesis generation within scientific practice. This led to his determination of a previously unarticulated limitation of science, which was something of a revelation to him.