 The second flaw of (I) becomes (even more) apparent when one takes a closer look at the successful-yet-false theories in Laudan’s list. Would anyone be willing to insist that, say, the humoral theory of medicine, the vital force theory of physiology or the theory of crystalline spheres are on a par with our current scientific theories with the same domain of application? The difference between their respective evidence is undoubtedly enormous. Nevertheless, it would rather be mistaken to restrict our attention to those theories comprising Laudan’s own list. Indeed, subsequent scholars have provided new lists of cases where admittedly false theories had been used in the derivation of impressive empirical predictions. Most notably, Timothy Lyons (2002: 70–72) and Peter Vickers (2013: 191–194) suggest the following (partly overlapping) lists: