somebody wrote:
> But there's a deeper issue here as well besides rewriting history to fit a
> hollywood theme: If someone makes the correct (as proven later) prediction
> based on faulty reasoning and/or insufficient data, are those contemporaries
> laughing at him correct in doing so or not? With billions of people
> expressing billions of opinions today, some are bound to make predictions
> that, to a future generation, may appear to be spot on. But if that person,
> at this time, is unable to provide supporting evidence or articulate a
> reasoning for his prediction, I feel I would be correct at laughing at him.

What if that person got together some money and did some actual
investigations into their predictions. By providing a testable
hypothesis, statistically and scientifically sound testing, and found
some results, either confirming, disproving, or offering no conclusive
proof. Person takes confirmation as vindication, disproving as reason to
rethink their stance, and the last as reason to refine their experiment.
 Still laughable?

What if instead of doing it all themself, they talked it out with some
academics and convinced them it was worth investigating. The same was
done: hypothesis, scientific testing, etc. End with same possible
results. Still laughable?

Post a reply to this message