When an event is observed violating whatever current laws are thought to exist, what follows?
Observations don’t get rejected, instead the laws get revised. For it is our understanding of the universe that has just been proven inadequate and in need of rejection, not the fact or factual event that has just occurred. A good example of how laws are revised is seen in the beliefs Einstein held about space and relativity (and seen in the subsequent confirming observations). Observations of spatial relativity severely violated what, in Einstein’s day, were the laws of nature – Newton’s laws of motion and spatial absolutes. As background to this, recall that the 18th century philosopher David Hume had popularized his belief that nothing could violate the laws of nature. Hume’s argument was made in the context of the laws of nature as they were defined in the late 1700’s. Consequently, at the dawn of the twentieth century, those who blindly adhered to Hume’s ‘nothing can violate nature’ concept were doomed to reject not only Einstein’s discovery of relativity, but also Heisenberg’s wo
