Tanmay,
Actually, I am saying something much more subtle. For example, do you believe that the words "Relativity", "relativity", "RELATIVITY", "rElEtIvItY" are the same word? In other words, am I using the standard 26 letter English alphabet, or am I using a much larger alphabet, in which "R" is not a capital "r", but a completely different letter? If you do not know the answer, a priori, than you may completely misinterpret any observed message written using an "alphabet" that bears some resemblance to another that you are likely to confuse it with.
Now imagine that the letters of the "alphabet" are encoded as short bursts of several simultaneous frequency tones, too closely spaced to be resolved, and that these "symbols" are distorted prior to being received, such that the same symbol never actually is observed to appear the same.
Techniques now exist that enable an entity, with a priori knowledge of the "allowable" symbol structures, the "alphabet", to almost perfectly reconstruct such a "message", in other words, to recover its information content. An observer without such a priori knowledge cannot. Indeed, such an observer may not even recognize the signal as a message at all - it may appear to be nothing but a burst of noise.
Unbeknownst to most physicists, observational limitations, such as the Uncertainty Principle, do not apply to such knowledgable observers. If one delves into the origins of the Uncertainty Principle, deep within Fourier Analysis, one finds that the derivation of the Uncertainty Principle implicitly assumes that observers have no such a priori information to exploit. The principle is not wrong, it is simply irrelevant, for such knowledgeable observers.
While such considerations may be of little impact for astronomical observations, in which an observer has little a priori knowledge of exactly how the signals being observed were created, the same cannot be said of laboratory experiments, in which the experimenter does know a great deal about the experimental set-up. Issues like "entanglement" will almost certainly be completely misinterpreted, by any observers that fail to even appreciate the existence of such observational phenomenon, much less correctly factor it into their interpretations of experimental results.