4 ms·
It's more reasonable in that it's more palatable to you, but let's be clear: you're speculating.
by Helianthus 13y ago
It's more reasonable in that it's more palatable to you, but let's be clear: you're speculating.
- nitrogen 13y agoThe speculation that relies on a known mechanism is more believable than the speculation that doesn't even propose a mechanism.
- Helianthus 13y agoThe term 'speculation' implies a mechanism unknown/unproposed. 'Known mechanism' is again shorthand for 'palatable.'
- nitrogen 13y agoPalatability is an unnecessarily pejorative shorthand for agreement with one's expectations of reality. I don't read "speculation" as meaning anything other than that the object of speculation is as yet unproven, so speculation that makes an argument based on previously known physical principles can still fairly be called speculation. However, such speculation can rightly be given greater weight than speculation which draws no connection to prior knowledge. For example, if one were to argue that fairies make plants grow, with no other information, then their argument can safely be ignored. On the other hand, if their argument includes a testable definition of a fairy, suggests a mechanism by which fairies add matter to plants, and provides a way of verifying that mechanism, then the detailed fairy argument should be given higher weight than the unsupported fairy argument, until evidence is available that either disproves the definition of a fairy, disproves the mechanism by which fairies make plants grow, or provides greater evidence for a different mechanism by which plants grow (mitosis, perhaps).
- scott_s 13y agoBased on the wording of the abstract, so are the study's authors. (That is, they say "we suggest" as opposed to "we hypothesized and provide supporting evidence." But, maybe they do in the full article, I don't know.)
- pygy_ 13y agoDefinitely, hence "hypothesis" and "possibility".