Re: Disparaging Popper

["philidor11" <philidor11@snet.net>]

< I will probably not make any explicit "a animal
like X should be found in Y.  I consider these to be perfectly good
predictions, but you are correct that the liklihood of near term
confirmation is decreased.  So I will concentrate on some phylogenetic based
stuff.   I will probably leave future workers to derive implicit predictions
about animal placement.>

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean.  However, if the
predictions that you are making are 'phylogenetic based stuff', then
wouldn't your confirmation demonstrate that your logic in drawing your
conclusions is consistent with philogenetic concepts?
Do you see demonstrating consistency of logic as a successful prediction of
the implications of your hypothesis?
Thanks again.  This inquiry into the nature of scientific prediction used to
confirm a hypothesis, particularly as applied to analysis of dino fossils,
is very intriguing to me.