Which of these preprints directly addresses observational evidence versus theoretical speculation?

Looking at your question and the preprints provided, AG-2025.02-572 most directly addresses the tension between observational evidence and theoretical speculation.

That paper examines black hole observations from LIGO and the Event Horizon Telescope, asking a fundamental epistemological question: how much are we actually *observing* versus *inferring from theory*? [AG-2025.02-572] The key finding is that both experiments rely heavily on simulations built from general relativity to extract information from raw data—meaning our "observations" are deeply "theory-laden," filtered through theoretical assumptions. This isn't a flaw but a necessary tradeoff: the simulations amplify what we can learn from the data, but at the cost of circular reasoning (our theory predicts what we should see, then we use that prediction to interpret what we do see). The paper evaluates strategies to reduce this circularity and discuss ways forward.

A secondary relevant entry is AG-2024.03-181, which frames dark energy research as a crisis of *underdetermined pursuit-worthiness*—we have multiple competing theoretical frameworks that fit the observational data equally well, with no clear winner on empirical grounds alone [AG-2024.03-181]. This highlights how observational data alone sometimes cannot decide between speculative theories.

The other preprints address related issues (AI reliability in model comparison, physicist opinion surveys, quantum field theory reasoning) but don't directly examine the evidentiary boundary between what we observe and what we theorize.