(April 8, 2016 at 9:26 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(April 8, 2016 at 5:56 pm)AAA Wrote: I agree that speculation is important in science, but don't lump your speculation in with the empiricism that we agree should lead the way.
What else would you call the observations that you just said were the basis for the speculation, if not empirical?
We are not on the same page. Yes, the observations are the empirical side of science (although even then many times it is the result of error), but the speculations that arise from them are not empirical. They (the observations) are therefore open to interpretation (speculation) by those who have an understanding of the material and have read the primary article thoroughly. Speculation is fine, but it differs between people and is not to be taken as anything more than speculation until it is tested or examined thoroughly.