Could we design observations that bypass some theoretical assumptions in the data-processing pipeline?

This is a genuinely interesting question, and the archive has several relevant pieces.

Yes—there are concrete strategies to reduce theory-ladenness in observational pipelines, though the trade-offs are significant.

The core issue is that modern astronomical and gravitational-wave observations rely heavily on simulations embedded in data processing. For example, both LIGO-Virgo's detection of merging neutron stars and the Event Horizon Telescope's black hole images depend critically on general-relativistic simulations to extract astrophysical parameters from raw data [AG-2025.02-572]. The risk is *inferential circularity*: you assume a theory to interpret the data, then claim the data confirms that theory.

Several strategies can reduce this theory-ladenness [AG-2025.02-572]:

1. Model-independent constraints. Rather than fitting a full theoretical model, extract summary statistics or inequalities that hold across a family of theories. For gravitational waves, this might mean constraining the "equation of state" of neutron-star matter without assuming a specific nuclear physics model.

2. Physical constraints from first principles. If a principle (like mass conservation or causality) is nearly model-independent, enforce it directly. For large-scale structure surveys, enforcing non-negativity of the density field in real space—a consequence of mass conservation—recovers information lost to foreground removal without explicitly modeling the nonlinear dynamics [AG-2025.03-363]. This is powerful because it uses fundamental physics rather than detailed simulations.

3. Observables-based reformulation. Instead of calibrating instrumental delays separately and then applying theory, fold the measured instrumental properties into the data-processing algorithm itself. The time-delay interferometry scheme for space-based gravitational-wave detectors (like LISA) can be rewritten directly in terms of onboard pseudo-random-noise ranging measurements, so fewer hidden assumptions hide in calibration tables [AG-2025.02-582].

4. Probing degeneracies with diverse data. Some biases in simulations can be exposed by degrading data systematically and watching how constraining power drops [AG-2025.01-309]. If a neural-network analysis breaks catastrophically when you remove one type of information, that's a red flag—it may be over-relying on an implicit assumption.

5. Accessing genuinely new scales. Foreground avoidance in radio cosmology loses large-scale information but can be partially recovered by remote measurements of large-scale modes from independent sightlines [AG-2024.10-718], sidestepping the need to model what you've thrown away.

The key insight: you cannot eliminate theory-ladenness entirely (observation is always theory-laden to some degree), but you can trade off *which* theories you trust. Preferring mass conservation to a detailed numerical simulation, or causality to a calibration model, often moves toward more robust conclusions.