No one is "debunking" the data, only interpretations. Ultimately any theory must cover all the data points. If it doesn't it will be rejected in favour of a theory that does. But for that one does need to have an understanding of what is and what is not data. As for multiple sensory modalities being involved, this is not data that they were all observing the same phenomenon. To conclude such is an interpretation of the data. The data would be "this sensor picked up this reading; this sensor picked up that reading; this one picked up this" etc. It is only subsequent interpretation that links all of them to the same phenomenon, and it being more rational that it is one phenomenon than multiple ones. E.g. if all the sensors indicate exactly the same spot, and the signal moves in exactly the same manner on all sensors, then the most likely interpretation is that it is the same target that they are all looking at. But that is interpretation, not data. An interpretation that there are different phenomena being tracked by each, any number of which (or none) may be sensor error, is also an interpretation. The question one must then ask oneself: which theory, which interpretation that fits all the data, not all the individual interpretations but all the data, is most rational? So yes, follow the data. Don't follow assumptions / interpretations.