[zaphar]

If the Colts did indeed have superior talent and then win the super bowl then obviously the reason was justified. If the Colts' ego is obviously making them overconfident and does indeed go to their head and cost them the game then again the reason is justified.

The point is that the reason isn't justified because the person correctly predicted an outcome. The reason is justified because the reason was based on true fact and is demonstrably capable of causing the effect.

Now if the Colts win the super bowl despite having worse talent because the opposing Saints team members all got drunk the night before and were playing with hangovers, then you would be justified in saying the predictor was lucky. It's not enough to say someone could have been lucky and then dismiss them. You should show they were lucky or accept they were correct in their reasoning.

[jerf]

"If the Colts did indeed have superior talent and then win the super bowl then obviously the reason was justified."

It should be pointed out that with Aristotelian logic, that is false. "Previously I said X will happen because of Y, and X happened." is basically "Y implies X; X is true; therefore Y".

Nevertheless, it is true that if a person makes a claim that something will happen for a given reason, gives plausible logical reasons, that we have priors that also indicate the causative connection is sound, and the prediction ultimately comes true, we should not just ignore it. We may not be justified in using Aristotelian logic to conclude with 100% confidence the person's reasoning was correct, but we are justified in taking it into account and concluding that there is some reason to believe this person, who made a prediction contrary to many people's other beliefs, may in fact have something.

After all, if you're not going to listen to people who make accurate predictions with plausible reasons used for their predictions, you can just give up on science right now, because that's all it is.