You&#x27;re missing the point. I agree that matching the predictions of <i>experiments</i> (not previous theories--I&#x27;m talking about experimental results that match the predictions of GR, not just those predictions themselves) is not a <i>sufficient</i> condition for a theory to be accepted (which is what you are saying); but it is certainly a <i>necessary</i> condition (which is what I was saying).<p><i>&gt; Just recall how Kopernik&#x27;s theory of solar system got accepted. It had worse predictions than Ptolemy&#x27;s scheme at the time it was introduced</i><p>Yes, and it wasn&#x27;t accepted at the time it was introduced. Actually, Copernicus&#x27; theory in its original form was never really &quot;accepted&quot;; what was accepted was Kepler&#x27;s reformulation using elliptical orbits, based on Brahe&#x27;s more accurate observations. Kepler&#x27;s model was <i>more</i> accurate than Ptolemy&#x27;s, and that was a key factor in its acceptance.