> Trying to pass off a revisionist hypothesis with advance knowledge of results I think you're reading too much into the "first they found X but then they foun

> Trying to pass off a revisionist hypothesis with advance knowledge of results I think you're reading too much into the "first they found X but then they found Y" narrative in the top comment of this thread. There's nothing like that in the actual paper - the authors start with one hypothesis, gather the data, do a bunch of regressions and whatnot, and report all the results. Then their overall conclusion is that the balance of the evidence supports their hypothesis, but they note all the caveats. There's no revisionism or changing of hypotheses or whatever, that I can see.