What is the power of prediction?

robinrohan, So if I predicted a solar eclipse occurred 2,000 BC, & an Egyptian document was discovered that recorded it, that wouldn't be a "real" prediction?If we have evidence that fossil X is the ancestor of fossil Z, & therefore internediate fossil Y should have characters 1,2,3,4,5, that's not a real prediction, either?MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 03-09-2006 03:11 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

robinrohan, Why not? We are stating that data should exist of something, it is therefore predictive in its very nature. How can it not be a prediction?In future could you please support your assertions with a bit more than flat denial.MarkThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-09-2006 02:30 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

robinrohan, So it is a prediction despite being in the past?Isn't it still a prediction of the theory regardless of when it was discovered?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

robin, Nevertheless, it is a prediction of the theory. Correct, but in & of itself I fail to see why this lessens the evidential power of the prediction. Why should nested hierarchies be less convincing because they were known about before the theory rather than after? It is merely a fact that is consistent with the theory. The ToE's veracity is unaffected by whether it was known before, or after. This is why we can say something is predicted by the theory & it doesn't matter, either way.I know what you are saying, something always seems much more impressive if it is discovered after the theories formulation, it has the appearance of a dramatic confirmation, but there is no reason why new data is more impressive than older data, per se.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 03-09-2006 04:03 PMThis message has been edited by mark24, 03-09-2006 04:04 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

robinrohan, I ask again, & I'll put it a different way this time because you ignored points I was making.A theory has 10 pieces of evidence in its support, 1-10, & all are equal in their evidential value. Two of them are known before the theories formulation. What about two of the evidences contributes less to the theories veracity than the other eight, given they are all of equal evidential weight? Put another way, someone who knows nothing about the theory comes along & looks at all ten evidences, would he see two evidences contributing less to the theories power if he never knew in advance that they pre-existed the theory?No, of course not. All that evidence should exist if the theory is true, if something should exist it is predictive by nature, & therefore a prediction of that theory. It is irrelevant whether it was known in advance.I understand what you are saying, it seems a bit like predicting that the racehorse Blue Brandy should win the race after it has been run, right? Not a particularly impressive after-the-event prediction. But if we theorise that Blue Brandy was the fastest horse in the race, then a prediction of that theory is that Blue Brandy should win. This prediction is true regardless of whether the race has taken place, or not.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

robin, It's not misleading, it falls within the definition of the word. It only appears misleading if you have a personal & inflexible definition in the first place. Irrelevant. Nothing in science adds up to a certainty regardless of whether you are looking at past events or atoms consisting mainly of space. You have stopped arguing about "prediction" & moved to the nature & quality of evidence.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

robin, That's not what it is irrelevant too, now, is it?It is irrelevant because I am arguing against quotes like this: & not the value of evidence/predictions.I agree the answer is yes. But do you accept that they are predictions? Then we can move on.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 03-10-2006 08:50 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't