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