4 ms·

There's no such thing as "physics defying". There's physics we understand, and physics we don't understand. The job of physicists is to change the latter into t

There's no such thing as "physics defying". There's physics we understand, and physics we don't understand. The job of physicists is to change the latter into the former. Whatever these phenomena are, sharing all of the information that's available about them can only help us to understand them. If all of that information can be accounted for by physics we know, that's fine. At least we'll know for sure. And if it can't, then we need to work on learning some new physics, as we've been doing for centuries.

tsimionescu 5y ago
> There's no such thing as "physics defying". There's physics we understand, and physics we don't understand. There's no such thing as physics defying phenomena that actually happened. But there are lots of phenomena which don't happen that would be physics defying if they did. For example, a device I claim to produce energy out of nothing is physics defying: it doesn't happen. And more data is not in itself a good thing. If you have low quality data, then sometimes the most scientifically honest thing to do is to throw it away - we don't have infinite energy to explore every shred of information and ascertain it's trustworthiness. For the same reason physicists or doctors don't go investigating every claim of a miracle or faith healing, they shouldn't investigate every blip on the radar. Releasing dumps of such data and insinuating that it's meaningful (while actually saying the truth, that it's simply unexplained, which is the default state of data) is generally against the public interest.