Should we "check our priors at the door", though? When neutrinos were "observed" to travel faster than light, the most appropriate conclusion wasn't "well I gue

Should we "check our priors at the door", though? When neutrinos were "observed" to travel faster than light, the most appropriate conclusion wasn't "well I guess we were fundamentally wrong about just about everything we've found in the last century", but was probably something like "okay, but can I take a closer look at your data". With priors left aside, the foundations of physics are questioned. I think the same holds for psi: if you abandon your priors and just make conclusions from which way some data swings, there is something very different about the universe than what has previously been attested to. I think Scott's analysis of "my priors against this are so strong that evidence in support of it looks more like evidence against the validity of the methodology" broadly matches with mine. Forgive me if I am misreading you, here.