3 ms·
No, you're mistaken. A _prediction_ was made and matches experiment, therefore the _prediction_ was proven correct. I believe you're repeating the idea that "_
by doublesCs 6y ago
No, you're mistaken. A _prediction_ was made and matches experiment, therefore the _prediction_ was proven correct.
I believe you're repeating the idea that "_theories_ aren't proven correct, you can only ever fail to falsify them", which is true. But you're applying the idea to predictions, which makes it false because predictions absolutely can be proven correct. In my opinion you come across as confused about these ideas.
- m12k 6y agoYou are correct, my comment should have read 'theory' rather than prediction. Alas it is too late for me to edit it, so it will be forever wrong.
- brlewis 6y agoFortunately, HN has a list of your other comments, many of which have yet to be proven wrong.
- eloff 6y agoBut does it? This is merely one entry in a long line of evidence consistent with the prediction. Wouldn't it be better to say it did not falsify the prediction? If this had not been consistent with the prediction, the precession of Mercury still was, so then one needs to sort out what that means. Was one of the experiments flawed? What's the statistical certainty of each, etc. I don't see how a prediction can be proven true anymore than a theory can.