The author is making it sound like the work is just p-hacking when it's /very clearly/ not.
This single paragraph in the Method section explains it best:
> "Reconstructing an image using bispectrum measurements is an ill-posed problem, and as such there are an infinite number of possible images that explain the data [28].
The challenge is to find an explanation that respects our
prior assumptions about the “visual” universe while still satisfying the observed data."
This is literally all of physics! You can say that Newtonian physics is 'just curve fitting' just the same.
I don't know enough about the philosophy of science to make a further argument here but clearly the author does not either.
The author is making it sound like the work is just p-hacking when it's /very clearly/ not.
This single paragraph in the Method section explains it best:
> "Reconstructing an image using bispectrum measurements is an ill-posed problem, and as such there are an infinite number of possible images that explain the data [28]. The challenge is to find an explanation that respects our prior assumptions about the “visual” universe while still satisfying the observed data."
This is literally all of physics! You can say that Newtonian physics is 'just curve fitting' just the same.
I don't know enough about the philosophy of science to make a further argument here but clearly the author does not either.