You retrodict Neptune/Vulcan. — Inis

"Retrodict" is not a word. We hypothesize the existence of Neptune/Vulcan.

You induce corroborations or falsification. — Inis

"Induce" usually means "cause." We conduct experiments and/or make additional observations to evaluate whether the necessary consequences of the hypothesis actually come about. If so, then the hypothesis is corroborated; if not, then it is falsified.

What do we do next? — Inis

We continue evaluating the hypotheses, eventually adopting the corroborated one (e.g., Neptune) as a belief and abandoning the falsified one (e.g., Vulcan).

We continue evaluating the hypotheses, eventually adopting the corroborated one (e.g., Neptune) as a belief and abandoning the falsified one (e.g., Vulcan). — aletheist

So you retrodict/deduce/induce that the theory that predicts Neptune is true?

So you retrodict/deduce/induce that the theory that predicts Neptune is true? — Inis

Again, we adopt the belief that Neptune exists, because the hypothesis that Neptune exists not only explained our initial anomalous observations, but also resulted in predictions that were corroborated by subsequent observations. We then maintain that belief unless and until we have good reason to doubt that Neptune exists.

Again, we adopt the belief that Neptune exists, because the hypothesis that Neptune exists not only explained our initial anomalous observations, but also resulted in predictions that were corroborated by subsequent observations. We then maintain that belief unless and until we have good reason to doubt that Neptune exists. — aletheist

So, is the theory, that predicted Neptune true or not?

So, is the theory, that predicted Neptune true or not? — Inis

I currently have no good reason to doubt that Neptune exists; that is, I believe that the proposition "Neptune exists" is true, where "Neptune" designates a gas giant planet with an orbit outside that of Uranus. As Peirce once put it, "Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts" (1868).

I currently have no good reason to doubt that Neptune exists; that is, I believe that the proposition "Neptune exists" is true, where "Neptune" designates a gas giant planet with an orbit outside that of Uranus. As Peirce once put it, "Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts" (1868). — aletheist

Do you have good reason to believe the theory that predicts the existence of Neptune to be true?

Do you have good reason to believe the theory that predicts the existence of Neptune to be true? — Inis

I stand by my previous answers. Perhaps you should clarify exactly what you mean by "the theory that predicts the existence of Neptune"; or better yet, just spell out whatever point you apparently want to make.

I stand by my previous answers. Perhaps you should clarify exactly what you mean by "the theory that predicts the existence of Neptune"; or better yet, just spell out whatever point you apparently want to make. — aletheist

That would be Newton's gravitation. Without it, what does "anomalous orbit" even mean?

Indeed. Unless you can detect anomalies with Kepler´s orbits, that might be the case; I know nothing about astronomy but surely there are people here who do.
By the way, Newton perhaps has been given more credit than he really deserved. The laws were already discussed in his circle; all he did was to undertake the task of giving them a mathematical framework, as a holiday project. Newton was the real Sheldon Cooper; and his colleagues let him take the credit in return for doing all that boring math.