> ... there's only a one in a billion chance that what they're seeing is a statistical fluke.

>But that doesn't make it real."


>From this perspective it becomes real when enough agreement is established.

Depends on what you mean by "make it real." The principle of agreement is a classic definition of what we can believe is "true." Something that's true is, in theory, open to verification by anybody who takes the trouble to look far enough into it. (That may involve taking ten years of physics courses, etc., etc., so admittedly it isn't very practical.)

What we can reasonably believe to be true, however, is not *necessarily* objectively true. Remember, you could be a brain in a vat in the thirty-ninth century. How would you know?

If it's a statistical fluke, it's still a statistical fluke, regardless of the odds. The only way to determine whether it really is a fluke is to recheck the experiment. Against such long odds, they'll be rechecking for a long time, as well as rechecking the odds that their estimate of the odds is correct.

My prophecy: If the finding is substantiated, certain parties will announce, "Darwin is next!"