You do understand the difference between proved and supported, right? I should hope so. So why did you change the former to the latter?
An example of a theory whose predictions were accurate but which we now know to be false is Newton's theory of gravity. In a similar vein, the hypothesis, accepted for over 2000 years, that space is flat and which was consistent with all observation until the 20th century is also now known false.
congruent conflation is an apt method of conveying accurate ideas
Well, I know what congruent means and I know what conflation means but I don't have a clue what congruent conflation means. Conflate is to mix together different things but congruence implies sameness. So, what does that mean to you?
But my point was that Dunn doesn't understand the two theories and doesn't even understand that they're different.
I wouldn't use the term 'false', how about incomplete? At non relativistic speeds Newtons equations are extremely accurate, but I am quibbling :( I know your scientific understanding may exceed mine.
Congruent conflation, pot calling the kettle black, they are two different things but they are both black. Yes I know that Special and General Relativity are two separate ideas but most people would be hard pressed to explain the difference. So I would probably have to agree with you when you say, "But my point was that Dunn doesn't understand the two theories and doesn't even understand that they're different.
My take on his statement was that except for the date he cited he used the General Relativity Theory properly. He also used the word 'proved' improperly and that is why I changed the word to 'supported' in my reply :) Despite those two errors (and there are more, I am sure) I thought the article was relatively interesting and worthy of more than an instant dismissal.