Science consists on conceiving hypotheses, confronting them with empirical evidence, and keeping only hypotheses which have not yet been falsified. Under deductive reasoning they are conceived in view of a theory and confronted with empirical evidence in an attempt to falsify it, and under inductive reasoning they are conceived based on observation, confronted with empirical evidence and a theory is established based on the not falsified hypotheses. When the hypotheses testing can be performed with quantitative data, the confrontation can be achieved with Machine Learning methods, whose quality is highly dependent on the hypotheses' complexity, hence on the proper insertion of prior information into the set of hypotheses seeking to decrease its complexity without loosing good hypotheses. However, Machine Learning tools have been applied under the pragmatic view of instrumentalism, which is concerned only with the performance of the methods and not with the understanding of their behavior, leading to methods which are not fully understood. In this context, we discuss how prior information and computational power can be employed to solve a learning problem, but while prior information and a careful design of the hypotheses space has as advantage the interpretability of the results, employing high computational power has the advantage of a higher performance. We discuss why learning methods which combine both should work better from an understanding and performance perspective, arguing in favor of basic theoretical research on Machine Learning, in special about how properties of classifiers may be identified in parameters of modern learning models.