The rationale for the “adjustments” are uncalibrated instruments. As a scientist I can say that it is gross incompetence to collect data without first calibrating your equipment. Furthermore, once the calibration problem was discovered, it is idiotic to ignore it rather than CALIBRATING YOUR FREAKING INSTRUMENTS so that the data you collect is accurate. Anything else is negligence, guesswork and poor scientific method.
The facts are unimportant. It’s the seriousness of the charges.
Yeah, it’s dangerous to try and make up for bad calibration with adjustments, since you don’t know when the erroneous readings began, or what the extent of the error was until you discovered it. It should only be done as a last resort when you cannot recalibrate and get new data, and even then, the resulting data will always be flawed.
Very correct sir, you are.
I would also like to point out that a scientific hypothesis must be defined and the methodology of "proving" the hypothesis must also be defined. You then prove the theory to turn the hypothesis into scientifically proved fact. Even "scientifically proved fact" can be found to be in error at a later date due to new data and research.
Scientific methodology does not allow one the luxury of changing the hypothesis after the fact due to "adjusted" data. Once you adjust the data the original hypothesis is dead. To use adjusted data would require a new hypothesis to prove the inaccuracy of the raw data and this must then be defended and scientifically proved and subjected to the original hypothesis.
The short version of the above is as follows:
1. I have a machine that eats crap and supposedly craps roses.
2. I feed it crap and it craps more crap. We have a problem with crap in crap out???
3. I feed it roses and it craps roses. Problem solved!!
True scientific method dose not allow step number 3!!!!!