Observations that fit a hypothesis may be made before or after the hypothesis is formulated. Can that difference be relevant to the amount of support that the observations provide for the hypothesis? Philosophers of science and statisticians are both divided on this question, but there is an argument that predictions ought to count more than accommodations, because of the risk of "fudging" that accommodations run and predictions avoid.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peter Lipton (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: