In article ,
"Robert L. Oldershaw" writes:

So, my reaction to Balazs et al is basically "wait and see". If the
result is genuine, within a few years we should have a confirmation
without post-hoc statistics. And if we don't get that confirmation,
that will imply that the result was basically a statistical fluke.

It is interesting to compare the general responses to empirical
evidence in the case of particle dark matter and the case of
cosmological inhomogeneity/anisotropy.

Forty years of experimental searches have failed to find evidence
for particle dark matter, and yet the general consensus is still
that the dark matter is some kind of subatomic particle.

Because essentially all other candidates have been ruled out.

Over the same period of time there have been published observational
findings that indicate that the inhomogeneity/anisotropy that is
so common on less than cosmological scales continues up to the
largest scales that we can adequately sample.

I posted an example where the first such of your examples was refuted.
You haven't replied to that, but continue to make claims which have been
disproved.

Yet in this case, the
general attitude is to be skeptical of the empirical results and
to assume that the more idealistic models will be vindicated.

Bottom line: How empirical evidence, and the lack thereof, is judged
appears to depend on the answer that is expected on the basis of
prevailing theoretical bias. No surprise there.

Are you any different in this respect, apart from having things switched
around? One could just as well say that you ignore arguments ruling out
your dark-matter candidate and are too accepting of isolated claims of
large structures.

When you make an argument, and someone points out a flaw (such as citing
a paper which refutes the paper you cite), you at least have to explain
why the refutation is wrong.