Changes

Another objection to Mill by Whewell is with respect to the confirmed novel predictions. Mill agrees that a hypothesis is seen as favorable if it explicates the previously unexplained facts. However, he considers the corroboration of novel facts as a mere “coincidence” striking as profound only to the “ignorant vulgar.”[[CiteRef::Strong (1955)|p.228]] Whewell objects to Mill that the history of science reveals the opposite: when hitherto unobserved facts, which were posited by certain theories, were discovered, this new information was seen as confirming evidence in support of the theory. In fact, some of the best theories, according to Whewell, earned their prestigious place in the scientific mosaic in virtue of the confirmation of their novel predictions. Whewell cites as an example the observance of the return of Haley’s comet as evidence confirming Newtonian theory, thereby demonstrating that, if we view the historical record on science, it becomes clear that the discovery of new facts predicted by the theories do, indeed, serve as confirming evidence, which is contrary to what Mill thought.[[CiteRef::Strong (1955)]]

}}