Something similar is discussed in a delightful paper by Kieran Healy on how much and what kind of nuance sociologists should embrace for different purposes in constructing social theories.
His paper and abstract set the stage, but don't do justice to the nuance in his argument:
Abstract: "Seriously, fuck it."
"This sort of nuance is fundamentally anti-theoretical. It blocks the process of abstraction that theory depends on.
" three nuance traps. First is the ever more detailed, merely empirical description of the world. This is the nuance of the fine-grain. It is a rejection of theory masquerading as increased applicability or range. Second is the ever more extensive expansion of some theoretical system in a way that effectively closes it off from rebuttal or disconfirmation by anything in the world. This is the nuance of the conceptual framework. It is an evasion of the demand that a theory be refutable. And third is the insinuation that your sensitivity to nuance is a manifestation of one’s distinctive (often metaphorically expressed and at times seemingly ineffable) ability to grasp and express the richness, texture, and flow of social reality itself. is is the nuance of the connoisseur. It is mostly a species of self-congratulatory symbolic violence.