Re:Let's hear scientists with different Covid-19 views, not ...
by hannasanarion on Monday April 27, 2020 @10:17PM
(#23002636)
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.
Gravity is a theory (an explaination) of an observable phenonmenon. It is the accepted story until a more compelling story comes around.
Some popular theories that were disproven:
Fleischmann–Pons’s Nuclear Fusion
Phrenology
The Blank Slate
Luminiferous Aether
To your other point. Data is constantly being re-examined. How accurate is the Data is. What the data is really examining are extremely important and change.