  Measuring the rate at which the universe expands at a given time -- the
'Hubble constant' -- has been a topic of controversy since the first measure of
its expansion by Edwin Hubble in the 1920's. As early as the 1970's, Sandage et
de Vaucouleurs have been arguing about the adequate methodology for such a
measurement. Should astronomers focus only on their best indicators, e.g., the
Cepheids, and improve the precision of this measurement based on a unique
object to the best possible? Or should they 'spread the risks', i.e., multiply
the indicators and methodologies before averaging over their results? Is a
robust agreement across several uncertain measures, as is currently argued to
defend the existence of a 'Hubble crisis' more telling than a single one
percent precision measurement? This controversy, I argue, stems from a
misconception of what managing the uncertainties associated with such
experimental measurements require. Astrophysical measurements, such as the
measure of the Hubble constant, require a methodology that permits both to
reduce the known uncertainties and to track the unknown unknowns. Based on the
lessons drawn from the so-called Hubble crisis, I sketch a methodological guide
for identifying, quantifying and reducing uncertainties in astrophysical
measurements, hoping that such a guide can not only help to re-frame the
current Hubble tension, but serve as a starting point for future fruitful
discussions between astrophysicists, astronomers and philosophers.
