4 ms·
Data is re-analyzed in the context of new data and improved hypotheses. Data is not "disproven" as you claimed. There may be several ways to explain an observat
by hannasanarion 7y ago
Data is re-analyzed in the context of new data and improved hypotheses. Data is not "disproven" as you claimed. There may be several ways to explain an observation, and some of the explanations can be shown to be wrong, but the observation itself never can.
After the discovery of standard candles, when the map of the universe was completely reconceptualized, nothing ever changed about astronomical data: observations of stellar position and brightness. What had changed was the explanation for those brightnesses and the meanings attributed to them. The data stays the same, the explanation changes, and if an explanation doesn't match the data, like the milky-way-is-the-universe hypothesis, then it's a bad explanation.
- wolco 7y agoWhat about false reporting?
- hannasanarion 7y agoWhat about it? Is this you admitting that you were totally wrong about how science works so now you're retreating to the conspiracy theorizing fallback position that all the universities and governments and health authorities and hospitals and nonprofits and NGOs and device manufacturers and biotech companies and nursing homes and cemeteries and obituary sections in newspapers in the entire world are all part of one big conspiracy to keep you from getting a haircut? My 37 year old cousin who is currently in the hospital for coronavirus, you think he was actually abducted by aliens, or what? Is he a "false report" too? What "false reporting"? Please explain to me why we should risk tens of millions of lives worldwide over your sheepish thumb-twiddling musings about "false reporting".