It would be impossible to determine what finding you're referring to, but I fully expect the explanation to be unimpressive and wholly irrelevant to your next doomed objection.

It was referenced in the previous page.

As expected. Seems like the process worked just fine, John. They nailed down the origin of an observed effect recorded by their regimented experimentation.

If the process worked regardless of the scientist, then the observations should not have varied. This shows that a crank doing science will produce crank results.

There were no cranks or crank results in your example. They were detecting a very real effect.

Which was what lol?

The obvious delay they noticed. Nothing crank about it, loonie.

The delay for which they fired Kinnebrook, correct?

Almost as if the scientist was the one responsible for the results rather than the process. Hmm. Strange.

(September 28, 2020 at 4:58 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: The findings from the Greenwich Observatory demonstrate that simply sticking to the process is insufficient to get consistent results across researchers.

And in modern day we'd use a photometer and accurate clocks.  No humans needed.

Science tries to get the human factor out of every measurement, if possible.  It searches for both systematic and random error sources.  It uses reproducibility by disparate groups and on different equipment to reduce sources of error and fraud.

Science is an art.  Science modifies itself when problems in the scientific method itself are found.  The purpose is to improve the likelihood that a theory could be correct by dismissing alternatives, and by testing new predictions of the theory. 

Science never finds truth.  Science is pragmatism only.  People, in our apparent need for Truth sometimes promote theories to "laws" or theories "truth", but that is part of our internal story-telling.  A good scientist knows that all theories are useful in their domain of relevance, but are always provisional.

As for which theory is chosen if both equally "explain" the results, that is simple in principle, though a bit of an art.  Scientists sometimes refer to "beauty" as an intellectually satisfying aspect of a theory.  Analytically, the most beautiful theory explains the most with the fewest arbitrary constructs.  A theory should be "as simple as possible, but no simpler" is the way Einstein put it.

BTW, gods are the most arbitrary construct of them all.

Exactly; we seek to remove the person from the process as much as possible, because the person affects the process. Otherwise, we could simply leave the person in the process and the outcome wouldn't change.