3 ms·
That's not what's happening according to the article: "Given the stakes, everyone involved is checking and rechecking their results for possible sources of err
by jtbayly 7y ago
That's not what's happening according to the article:
"Given the stakes, everyone involved is checking and rechecking their results for possible sources of error. Increasingly, though, it looks like the problem lies not with the observations but with the theories of cosmology that underpin them. If those theories are wrong or incomplete, the interpretation of the Planck readings will be flawed, too."
- rightbyte 7y agoYe, the reevaluation of prior result is a sign of good science and should be of greater prestige (i.e. more grant money) among researchers. There is a science wide bias for interesting results. The same article also writes "Then came an unexpected turn of events" when another researcher disagrees to some degree, which is in no way unexpected.