I disagree that “being born” is “trivial” in the issue of whether or not someone commits murder. Someone must necessarily be born before they commit murder. Saying “it’s trivial” sounds to me like saying it doesn’t really matter whether or not someone is born before they commit murder. Of course it does! They must necessarily be born to commit murder!
Similarly, overturning scientific consensus necessarily relies on experimental results. There is no way to overturn scientific consensus that does not begin with experimental results.
But this analogy seems to suggest that you’re arguing that experimental results are “trivial” with respect to overturning scientific consensus, in other words that experimental results simply aren’t important with respect to overturning scientific consensus. Is this actually what you’re arguing? That the influence of experimental results on scientific consensus is “trivial”?
I am not claiming anything about importance. I am claiming things about priority. Priority != importance (despite conventional usage of the word “priority”).
