No, I would bifurcate research into two classes -- Let's call it 'science' and 'hunches'. (I'm sure marketing people would think of a better name.) There's not

No, I would bifurcate research into two classes -- Let's call it 'science' and 'hunches'. (I'm sure marketing people would think of a better name.) There's nothing stopping you from publishing hunches; there's nothing stopping the same journals from publishing science and hunches. It would just be the case that we'd treat publishing a hunch as science as fraud, because you're outright lying about how sure you are. It is the case that several fields would get (almost entirely) moved from science to hunches, but that would be good! The label will match what's inside. If we have this split in the product lines, if we have these two tiers (models where we're really sure and complex systems where we only have a working hunch), then we should just own it and put that on the tin. All I'm asking is people stop labeling composite wood as lumber -- and understandably, a lot of people selling composites act like that would make the sky fall. Hardly, there's a real demand for both products and both serve a real need. Let's just be honest in our marketing and stop conflating the two.