Talk:Predictive power

message: About the solar eclipse in 1919: I've heard that the results of the measurements were faked? I'm not questioning general relativity at all, but that this actual "confirmation" was not really true.Unclevortex 12:21, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
:Harry Collins & Trevor Pinch's The Golem () provide an account of the experiment; the results were not faked as such, but the results of starlight during the eclipse, recorded on photographic plates, were highly variable and inaccurate, and could also have been interpreted as being a confirmation of the Newtonian model (which also predicted some bending of light too, but to a lesser degree). The Royal Society (or some similar body) arbitrated - some results were discounted, and others were included, with some quite curious logic used to apply as to which ones should be used; they decided that Einstein's propositions held. In science studies the case is often held up as a classic example, not of predictive power, but of how results can be selectively interpreted to confirm existing prejudices. In fact this article could not have used a worse example!
:All the above is off the top of my head, I don't have the relevant text and sources to hand; when I do (in a few days) I will update the article. Qwghlm 23:51, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
:I've added a disputed template to the page because of the above; anyone willing to add some more historical context to the general relativity example is welcome to - I would myself but am unable to do so right now. Qwghlm 00:06, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
::Thank you for clearing that up! That's what I've read before too. --Unclevortex 10:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

message: The following sentence, from paragraph 2 of the 1919 eclipse section, needs to be fixed, but I'm not sure what it means so I can't fix it:
:Two telescopes were used at Sobral, one recorded 8 plates recorded a mean deviation from the norm of 1.98″ of arc (1 ″ = 1/3600th of a degree), and the other 18 plates with a mean deviation of 0.86″
Is it that, at one telescope, 8 plates were used which recorded a mean deviation etc.?  As currently stated it makes no sense.  Thanks. Chick Bowen 20:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my bad. Have corrected. Is it any better now? Qwghlm 22:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, very clear. Chick Bowen 00:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence needs fixing 

message: Holy smokes.
For one thing, what does this one example have to do with predictive power? No one can think of a better example to use? Like, oh I don't know, Neptune?!
For another, its generally accepted that the story that Eddington fudged the data is simply a well-repeated myth.  The article here essentially states that the the myth is true, and there's no discussion about counter viewpoints. These counter-arguments appear to be extremely solid, see this entry in the Philip Ball blog for instance. Here's the cogent quote, "In any event, a modern analysis of these plates in 1979 shows that, taken together, they do support Einstein’s prediction rather well, and that the original teams made assumptions in their calculations that were justified even if they couldn’t be conclusively supported at the time."
:(correct URL: Arthur-eddington-was-innocent)
All of this would be fine if this were an article on the eclipse measurements, but here it's nothing more than an overly long, poorly supported, counterexample.
I argue it should be removed entirely.
Maury 15:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eclipse AGAIN 

message: The name of this article is "Predictive Power," but the text mostly  seems to consist a critique of the Eddington eclipse experiment, and a very superficial critique at that.  The entire article seems to be off topic.   
If the presence of the eclipse experiment means that the discussion should be torqued around so fully that the main focus of the article seems to be critiques of the Eddington experiment, it is badly out of place.
I rewrote the article, greatly shortening the discussion of the Eddington eclipse and moving it further back to a slightly less prominent position in the article, and I reduced the critique of the experiment to a minimum, giving a reference link to The Golem () for people who want more details of the critique.  Geoffrey.landis 23:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably worth having a separate article on just the Eddington experiment. There is enough history and subsequent analysis and myths that need correcting, to justify it. I learnt about all this in the late-1990s, and I was unaware that opinions had changed again (see the 2006 and 2007 papers), or shifted slightly (not sure which). Also "observations made by the astrophysicist Arthur Eddington" oversimplifies it. It was two expeditions and many people involved. I believe Eddington went to Principe, and someone else went to Sobral (or maybe it was the other way around). And then the results were analysed when they got home. Carcharoth (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A separate article on the experiment does sound reasonable.  Geoffrey.landis (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to start something at some point. The best account on-wiki seems to be Tests of general relativity#Deflection of light by the Sun. The article mentioned there, Kepler problem in general relativity, turns out to be a general article about the mathematics of the general problem. I'm wondering what the best title for the experiment would be. :Category:Physics experiments has articles closest to what I'm thinking of (though the :Category:Experiments looks like it needs re-organising). I'm thinking either "experiment" or "expedition". We have :Category:Scientific expeditions. The article could also focus on the eclipse, though that distracts from the expedition and experiments. Seeing as the article should cover the results and the impact and the later history, it should be "experiment". Maybe Eddington experiment and/or 1919 Solar Eclipse Expeditions? There is also (though less widespread) the Dyson-Eddington experiment and Dyson-Eddington-Davidson experiment. Which name would be best do you think? Carcharoth (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off Topic? 

message: A note (following on from the above) that the main content on the eclipse and the experiment now appear to be at the following three locations:
*Arthur Eddington#Relativity
*Eddington experiment
*Solar eclipse of May 29, 1919
Carcharoth (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eddington experiment 

message: There appears to be no definition of the term "Predictive power" in the article. I left reading it with having to determine the meaning by abstracting from the given examples.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.0.213.82 (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition?