If the data that agrees with you is "good data", and the data that disagrees with you "needs to reach a higher standard", that is how inaccurate beliefs get entrenched.
If you told me that you saw the sun rise in the east this morning, I'd probably believe you.
If you told me that you saw the sun rise in the north this morning, I'd probably not believe you.
In both cases, "the data is the data," and all I have is your report. However, given a strong prior probability based on personal experience and first-principles reasoning, in the second case above I'm still more likely to think you mistaken than the conventional cosmological model wrong.
I wish it was that simple, but it's not. Data has flaws and limitations and is subject to interpretation. This isn't like math where we can prove the answer to a question is true with absolute certainty.
If the data that agrees with you is "good data", and the data that disagrees with you "needs to reach a higher standard", that is how inaccurate beliefs get entrenched.