When observations, i.e. test data, disagree with theory then 1 or the other is wrong. That's obvious. Either the theory that explainsthe phenomenon is flawed or the observation of what happened was flawed.It's said In science that theory is king. Whatthat means in practice is that when observations disagree with accepted theory then skepticism should be aimed first at the observation. Only after independent testers have repeatedly duplicated the observations that go against the theory is the theory questioned.Then old theory is modified and/or new theories are developed to better explain the phenomenon in light of the new data. The new theories go through the process I roughly described before until 1 rises as the best explanation of the phenomenonwe have to go by.

So yes, you should have expected it. That's how science is supposed to work. Many here seem to be operatiing under the assumption that data is king. Well it might be in some circles, but they certainly wouldn't be scientific circles.

A quick anecdote... I used to love to watch Cosmos. For those of you who aren't old enough to know, it was a PBS program about, surprise surprise, the cosmos and it was hosted by the late dr. Carl Sagan. He once made a statement that always stuck with me. He said that facts are a dime a dozen, in science theory is king.

So MeanV, I hope this helpls you "understand how some will argue with black & white figures".