[powellc]

The article repeatedly points out that it "feels like" a cosmic conspiracy, while never actually claiming that's the case. In fact the article makes a fine point that there is no conspiracy. My take away was that in the pursuit of the truth of a surprising hypothesis a surprisingly high percentage of scientists and their peer-reviewed journals gloss over some of the major underpinnings of the scientific method, like data that directly refutes a finding and a reluctance to reconsider a new world-view in light of evidence that suggest said new world-view is likely false.

Of course, we could all just go back and read Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions again and realize that science, as a human endeavor, is still usually susceptible to human weaknesses. It's the radical idea that gets glossed over, until it doesn't. Then everything changes. But do you have the balls to go back if it turns out that that which changed everything was more than likely false?

Also, let's not go claiming things that can't be proved. Like that the universe doesn't care what we believe. How can you know a thing like that?