>>14423131the data hasn't been made more available, in general it's locked in the data accessibility nightmare that is academic publishing. if it's even published at all.
the volume of satellite and telescope data made public is disorganized, unsearchable, and has to literally crowdsource initial characterization a lot of the time because there's so much of it. and then you've got plenty of data that isn't made public for years, and you have a perfect recipe for making systemic bias rampant
you're watching the real time collapse of the cultural pedestal academia used to occupy. welcome to the consequences of pretending that science had long ago excised the institutional rot that kept phlogiston alive for over a century (our new magic dark fluids are completely unrelated for reasons (the reasons are literally observations inconsistent with theory, used as if to prove the theory))
truth is, scientists are humans, and worse, they're emotionally invested humans - this is just what happens when science loses its philosophical and epistemological underpinnings in a misguided effort to better sell certificates. doubt is a healthy place for science, certainty isn't. shame certainty is so much more profitable (and i don't mean that in a greedy sense, i mean that in a "this is the only way we can get grant money" sense)
