As this Stackexchange site insists on objective evidence primarily from peer reviewed and published sources and the participants appear to be well versed in researching the same, I believe that a question pertaining to the specifics of the mechanics of the same would be in place here.
If there is a case where a certain phenomenon bears itself out in a well-run study, with robust methodology and yields irrefutable results, but is unjustifiable based on current beliefs, is it accepted by the scientific community? Or, in other words, if a result can not be explained away using first principles based on the current knowledge, would the results still be acceptable and candidates for publication?
As a specific example, consider this question:Has most peer-reviewed research on homoeopathy given positive results?. I can see that the methodology and biases have not been accounted for and the members of skeptics.se have been able to poke holes in the study sited. However, hypothetically, if the study had succeeded in proving positive results of homoeopathy, given the absurdity of the "water memory" premise and "dilutions/succession", would the same hold any currency in scientific literature?