Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
it does not apply well to original research, only to explanations advanced for that.
It does not apply well to observations. They are sometimes instrument artifacts, but that is not the same thing as "falsified." An instrument artifact really did happen. The numbers are real, but they do not mean what you think they meant.
This is in agreement with what I wrote. "Observation" is what I meant by "original research." Original research can also include conclussion, but I am here distinguishing observation from explanation.
There can always be instrumental artifacts or other errors in observation. However, the distinction between witness (i.e., reported observation) and conclusions is well understood at law.
