>In 1875, Charles Darwin posited that some species from the genus Saxifraga—a group of flowering plants typically found in alpine environments—may be carnivorous because of their sticky glandular hairs, which can trap insects. However, there has been a lack of conclusive evidence to support this hypothesis.
Can you clarify how you got "But Darwin, if I understand correctly, classified the plant as carnivorous" out of that? Because it sounds like Darwin observed that there existed this feature on the plants that appeared adapted to carnivorous behavior, but didn't actually observe it in action (and of course he didn't have isotopic tracking to provide hard proof of molecular absorption either). So it was a hypothesis based on feature observation, and now someone has gotten around to proving that as fact via experiment. Not something radically new in terms of technique sure, could have been proved long ago in principle (this sort of tracking was core to what settled the original DNA/protein genetics debates), but still fun to read about and nice to see more getting learned about the species in our world.
Also the further back you go into the 19th century, the more likely it is that the potentiating invention would be completely unrelated to nuclear chemistry.
Regardless, that same potentiating invention (whatever it is) is surely responsible by now for a whole lot more things other than nuclear science.
For example, we predict that there is gold in X location.
In science, a ‘prediction’ has special status because it can lend credence to a hypothesis if its implications (predictions) are borne out.
If it’s about the future, the precise verb is ‘forecast.’
I'd argue that stats/probability folks pervert "prediction" by using it in contexts of mere information masking, stripping away the tense. There are many better words for this: speculate, extrapolate, estimate, infer, ...
I think in normal English of the public at large and lay people, "predict" and "forecast" have nearly the same meaning as speculation about a future outcome. The main difference is that we "predict" discrete outcomes while we "forecast" statistical outcomes.
Notably they do.
You wanna go another lap around the circle or?
> A prediction (from Latin prae- 'before' and dictum 'something said')[1] or forecast is a statement about a future event or about future data.
Troll muted.
"We predict that these properties will be found." -- about future events or data.
Trolls are stupid and dishonest losers. The end ... I won't be back.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that the thing predicted itself belongs to the future. Historical linguists predicted the existence of ancient languages with specific features (glottals) and then found one.
Putting on mute -- I won't respond further.
You're right that I'm making two completely different claims.
The first is that I'm using (and implicitly defining) the word correctly. My usage is in no way similar to abuses of the word "literal." I'm using the word correctly in one of its standard, well-established senses. This is inarguable, regardless of what the dictionary says.
The second claim is that the distinction you're drawing is wrong. Let me state my point more clearly and strongly: it's not only wrong but shows a profound misunderstanding of language. You seem to think that if one word means one thing, a different word must mean something else. I can't for the life of me fathom any other reason why you would have posted the "corrections" you posted. (The only alternative to this interpretation, as far as I can tell, is that you really think that the meaning I've assigned to "predict" is wrong -- and that isn't worth arguing over, because the meaning is correct.)
Regardless of what argument you think you're making or what logic you think you're following, the very fact that you think logic comes into play at all shows profound misunderstanding. There is no logic. There is just a word and its sense. That's it. Logic does not dictate sense.
I couldn't care less whether you've muted the conversation or whether you say you won't respond. That kind of defensive posturing isn't even worth acknowledging, but I'll take the opportunity to acknowledge it just so that I can point out that it is deeply sad and deeply silly.
From Wikipedia:
> A prediction (from Latin prae- 'before' and dictum 'something said')[1] or forecast is a statement about a future event or about future data.
This is not correct. A prediction is about something unknown — maybe because it is in the future, or maybe because of some other reason.
The headline is well written and clear.
So predicting human activity rather than future evolution.
'The sun will rise tomorrow' is a pretty weak prediction, but we don't truly know that the sun will rise tomorrow. However, we can be pretty sure it will based on probability, history, likelihood, from our own past observations. You wouldn't need much convincing to believe the prediction.
'The sun will not rise tomorrow' is a much stronger prediction, because it's a 'wilder' less believable claim with very huge impact. Nobody would believe the statement without proof.
A hypothesis, is a testable statement about a predicted outcome. You could hypothesize something like: 'The Earth's core will stop due to XYZ event, which will stop Earth's rotation. The sun will not rise tomorrow.' Then you go about designing experiments (or you observe and show something that is measurable, like some asteroid on a path close to Earth's) to prove the statement.
From the article: 'Charles Darwin posited that some species from the genus Saxifraga—a group of flowering plants typically found in alpine environments—may be carnivorous because of their sticky glandular hairs, which can trap insects'.
'Posited' is to suggest, assume, or put forward an idea, theory, or fact as a foundational basis for an argument or investigation. 'Posited' isn't quite as strong as the word prediction, it's more like a sensible suggestion for further study. Darwin had observed carnivorous behavior in other plants with sticky hairs, and suggested the behavior may be observed in another plant as well.
He didn't make a strong claim like: 'The genus Saxifraga plants are carnivorous because they have sticky hairs that trap insects.' This sort of claim suggests that plants with sticky hairs always trap insects for nutrients, and frankly, he couldn't know that's true without observing every plant with sticky hairs.
What if there are plants with sticky hairs that use the stickiness as a defensive measure instead?
Should the article have used a different word than 'predicted'? Probably, but it wouldn't attract as many viewers, and 'predicted' sort of lends Darwin deserved credibility.