This is how science is supposed to work.

An extraordinary claim generates extraordinary scrutiny.

The scrutiny identifies specific weaknesses in the evidence.

The researchers respond to those weaknesses by finding new evidence that addresses them through independent methods.

The result is an evidentiary case that is far more robust than any single piece of evidence could be, precisely because it has been tested from multiple directions and has emerged stronger rather than weaker.

The Paisley story is a good example of this process at work — and a reminder that scientific skepticism is not the enemy of discovery.