[0. A long history of theoretical and experimental discoveries lead to a specific, well-motivated theory (General Relativity) describing gravitational phenomena.]<p>1. Theory predicts a <i>very</i> specific and recognizable class of gravitational wave patterns for likely sources, whose details are determined by a small number of parameters that correspond to meaningful physical quantities (specifically, two masses and a distance; I don&#x27;t know if there are any more than that).<p>2. Two independent experimental instruments measure a wave pattern that (apart from some low-level noise) is an excellent match to one of the predictions. Fitting the model to match the specific data, the resulting parameters have entirely plausible astrophysical values.<p>3. This is considered an example of a theory making a specific, novel prediction that is later confirmed by experiment: pretty close to the classic definition of the scientific method.<p>4. Therefore, the experimental data has provided strong support for the premises of the theory being tested: both its prediction of gravitational waves and its detailed dynamical predictions for the source scenario matching the observations.<p>Maybe I&#x27;m misunderstanding something in your argument, but I don&#x27;t see any circularity here. What about this process isn&#x27;t precisely the way that science is supposed to work?