Resolution by Atreya Punarvasu

तथर्षीणाम् विवदताम् उवाच एवम् पुनर्वसुः॥

मा एवम् वोचत तत्वम् हि दुष्प्रापम् पक्षसंश्रयात्॥२६॥

वादान् सप्रतीवादान् हि वदन्तो निश्चितान् इव॥

पक्षान्तम् नैव गच्छन्ति तिलपीडकवत् गतौ॥२७॥

मुक्त्वैवं वादसंघट्टम् अध्यात्मम् अनुचिन्त्यताम्॥

न अविधूते तमःस्कन्धे ज्ञेये ज्ञानम  प्रवर्तते॥२८॥

येषामेव हि भावानाम् संपद् संजनयेत् नरम्॥

तेषामेव विपद् व्याधीन् विविधान् समुदीरयेत्॥२९॥

Translation: When the Rishis were debating like this, Punarvasu said " Do not debate like that. Principle is very difficult to arrive at when everybody is taking a partisan stand. You are proposing theories and refuting others as if it is a foregone  conclusion. those who are going round and round like bulls in oil mill  cannot arrive at any conclusion. Leave this heated debate and think about the principle (Adhyatma) Unless crowd of dark (Tamas) thoughts are removed we cannot know the knowable.

(I propose) All those factors which when in excellent condition generate an organism; cause various diseases when (they are) defective.

Commentary (Chakrapani):    Blinding love with own theory is called here as Tamas Skanda as it interferes in arriving at conclusion. Factors like Mahabhootas are inclusive of Doshas like Vata as they are also made up of Mahabhootas. Various theories are put here to remove the doubt from mind of disciples.

Commentary (Y.G.Joshi): The Rishis were described as having infinite knowledge and dispelled doubts therefore every statement by them contained at least some aspect of the truth and must be considered deeply. Punarvasu is not refuting any theory but is advising against jumping to conclusions and not considering realistic objections while having blind faith in one's own theory. 

Commentary (Vishnu): Both Charaka and Sushruta have not sided with any perticular theory. They accept all the theories whenever suitable. This way of thinking is usually not seen in western thinking. Usually it is adversarial or argumentative way which is embedded in western scientific thought. Jain Darshana has a beautiful way of dealing with multiple theories i.e. Naikantvada. Modern Physicists are trying to build a grand unified theory which will explain everything. Einstein spent at least fifty years exercising his phenomenal intellect persuing GUT. String theory is supposed to be Theory of Everything (TOE) Though building a meta theory to account for all sorts of special situations  seems a worthwhile goal, consensus of Ayurvedic thinkers points to futility of such efforts. Here I am reminded of Godel's Theorum of incompleteness.For more details see the excellent book 

Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid (commonly GEB) is a book by Douglas Hofstadter, described by the author as "a metaphorical fugue on minds and machines in the spirit of Lewis Carroll".

On its surface, GEB examines logician Kurt Gödel, artist M. C. Escher and composer Johann Sebastian Bach, discussing common themes in their work and lives. At a deeper level, the book is a detailed and subtle exposition of concepts fundamental to mathematics, symmetry, and intelligence.

Through illustration and analysis, the book discusses how self-reference and formal rules allow systems to acquire meaning despite being made of "meaningless" elements. It also discusses what it means to communicate, how knowledge can be represented and stored, the methods and limitations of symbolic representation, and even the fundamental notion of "meaning" itself.

In response to confusion over the book's theme, Hofstadter has emphasized that GEB is not about mathematics, art, and music but rather about how cognition and thinking emerge from well-hidden neurological mechanisms. In the book, he presents an analogy about how the individual neurons of the brain coordinate to create a unified sense of a coherent mind by comparing it to the social organization displayed in a colony of ants 

(Mathematicians Please correct me if I am wrong) Arriving at a meta theory may well be theoretically impossible. (Remember Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?) Whole quantum theory became possible only after scientists accepted this principle. Life sciences at current stage may move in different directions if we abandon our insistence about knowing everything from first principles.