Not familiar with the statistical analysis, but I’m guessing they would probably counter that indirect evidence is still evidence. That’s not as satisfying to me as direct evidence, but they have a point.
Sure, it’s for real, I presume, but supremely unsatisfying. Like the expert knowing everything about nothing. This whole realm of thinking just stretches out into the aether.
The exciting thing is the machine itself, and the interactions it creates, which are largely quark-gluon plasm balls, AFAIU. There was talk at one point that they wouldn’t be able to see through the “fog” of these things. Not sure how that worked out.