Steven Sullivan wrote in message et...
Nousaine wrote:

This is what always happens with 'bad news.' Instead of giving us contradictory
evidence we get endless wishful 'data-dredging' to find any possible reason to
ignore the evidence.

In any other circle when one thinks the results of a given experiment are wrong
they just duplicate it showing the error OR produce a valid one with contrary
evidence.

Not necessarily. It's quite common for questions to be raised during peer
review of a scientific paper; it is then incumbent upon the *experimenter*, not
the critic, to justify his or her choice of protocol, or his/her explanation of
the results. Often this involves doing more experiments to address the reviewer's
concerns. Sometimes it merely involved explaining the results more clearly, or
in more qualified terms. If the experimenter feels the reviewer has ignored some
important point, that comes out too in the reply to the reviews.

I say all this having not yet visited the link, so I'm totally unbiased ;

Bravo Mr. Sullivan. I hope you'll be as pleased to accept my applause
as I am to see your excellent exposure of the frequently-voiced
challenge to the ABX sceptics to "prove" their sceptical questions.
Exposure coming from an unexpected corner.
Perhaps we're seeing a revival of intellectual integrity in debate on
RAHE.

I promise to quote your summary when occasion warrants it.
Ludovic Mirabel