What they just said was that the ‘margin for error was greater’. Since science is based upon statistical analysis, giving a P value, or probability, that is 95% certain the findings were by not by chance. What they are really saying is that the previous conclusions will have to be withdrawn because they will fall within the chances of statistical error.
The evidence doesn’t support their conclusion with scientific certainty. The double speak is because they aren’t able to support their ‘belief’ with the numbers. Their ‘beliefs’ are their business, but it’s not science.
In my mind, it means that the science and the investigators are both compromised. The science by missed data and bad statistics, and the investigators by ‘beliefs’ and not hypothesis ‘that weren’t supported by the data’.
No: this is the simple lie behind all these scams.
Science is not based on statistical analysis: it is based on objective, verifiable facts.
Either a body floats in the bath, or it doesn't.
Either apples fall to the ground, or they don't.
Either the planets move in elliptical orbits, or they don't.
Either an electric current breaks water into hydrogen and oxygen, or it doesn't.
Well, extend the list as far as you please, for this is what over two thousand years of science have taught us.
Nic Lewis also said that their estimate of the mean value was off by 30 percent as well.