I think Silverstein makes a weak argument, and I agree with Weinberg in that I see nothing wrong with noticing when someone&#x27;s view turned out to be in agreement with what is now established science, or has by now been clearly refuted. I would, however, argue that doing so is not particularly important - even when we can do it, knowing who was wrong and who was right (and no-one was right all the time and in every detail) doesn&#x27;t tell us anything about how we got to being able to make that judgment with confidence.