The problem is in the original statement. There's an important difference between "The sky will be red tomorrow" and "Based on {data}, I think that the sky wil

The problem is in the original statement. There's an important difference between "The sky will be red tomorrow" and "Based on {data}, I think that the sky will be red tomorrow." even if the reasoning from {data} to "sky red tomorrow" is flawed. If someone arrives at a conclusion via a process that I can analyse, I expect that they'll arrive at a different conclusion if the data turns out different. When someone says "{whatever} is true", it's on them, and should be, when {whatever} turns out to be false. Here's another way to look at it. Folks who arrive at conclusion in a openly disinterested way can switch conclusions without losing credibility. People who seem to be interested in a given conclusion lose credibility, and should, when they're wrong. Same for folks who don't show their work. If you make it about you, you can't complain when it's about you.