>Really? Because the article seems to say the complete opposite in multiple instances.
Where is it saying that Physicists are trying to avoid anomalous data?
>"Oh hey this thing doesn't match what is expected according to the standard model but yeah the standard model is tots fine bro."
No one in the Physics community thinks like this. As I said it's very nearly the complete opposite, that if major problems in the model were found via experiment the person who found it would be cheering because they just guaranteed themselves a Nobel Prize. The problems with the Standard Model are widely known and deeply studied.
>So why is the standard model not in the trashcan?
Because despite it's known shortcomings it can still calculate 99.99% of scenarios with arbitrary accuracy. There's a reason Newtonian Mechanics are still taught, because for the cast majority of cases it completely works.
Where is it saying that Physicists are trying to avoid anomalous data?
>"Oh hey this thing doesn't match what is expected according to the standard model but yeah the standard model is tots fine bro."
No one in the Physics community thinks like this. As I said it's very nearly the complete opposite, that if major problems in the model were found via experiment the person who found it would be cheering because they just guaranteed themselves a Nobel Prize. The problems with the Standard Model are widely known and deeply studied.
>So why is the standard model not in the trashcan?
Because despite it's known shortcomings it can still calculate 99.99% of scenarios with arbitrary accuracy. There's a reason Newtonian Mechanics are still taught, because for the cast majority of cases it completely works.