Now you're just waffling. You aren't related to that rubber faced twat of a finance minister, are you?
Every Greek is related to each other!
By the way: while he (Varoufakis) is more known to "barbarians" like you because of his exposure to international media, much worse than him exist in our current goverment... people that we Greeks have the "privilege to enjoy" all by ourselves - just think that Varoufakis is NOT a member of the parties currently in power! I believe (and hope) that this goverment will be out of power in a couple of months (we already started to talk about elections in Greece).
Just a comment for that "you can be a Christian Buddhist" (since i am the Greek Orthodox Christian the GP was replied to) for those that may disagree with you: i am a (Greek Orthodox) Christian "Buddhist"... so, yes, you can be that kind of a Buddhist - of course you understand that i believe in (the living) God, but i don't find it theologicaly incompatible to accept "worldly" Buddhist truths. I just wanted to support what you wrote, and maybe save some naive Buddhists who may think that they have to choose between heaven or earth!
That kind of "empiricism" (I think you're misusing the word "empirical") is scientifically meaningless.
Yes, my empiricism (i will use this word since you understand it - i was afraid to use it because of my bad English!) is scientifically meaningless (i already wrote: "of course it is un-scientific knowledge/statement, and i can't use a scientific method to prove my claim").
You claim empirical knowledge of a god, let's call him God A. If I claim empirical knowledge of some God B where it is obvious that A =/= B, how are you going to argue with me? You can't. This is what makes religion unscientific. There is no common ground of reproducible observation and experiment.
I agree with you (and it is theologically meaningless to argue about God A and God B since God = God!) - that is why i support my *NON-scientific* theological empiricism!
You first problem here is that you think that the word used is Greek just because is sounds like and is spelled exactly like the Greek one.
In every language there are words like that, etymologically they can be traced to a language they were borrowed from but as they were brought into another language it adopted a different meaning.
Hypothesis in English does not mean the same thing as Hypothesis in Greek.
You would have to excuse me but: i know Greek (i am Greek!) and (some bad) English, plus (i think that) i understand what a *scientific* hypothesis is (it means the same thing is means in Greek: hypothesis!!!) - so, this is not (just) an etymological debate, but something that has to do with my signature: Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." (please notice the *wisdom* word - and then read again the/. story!)
All your points was good enough (and please don't think that i disagree with you - i just try to find a good answer for myself!), but i have some problems with a) terminology (what is the definite definition (!) of "-scientific- speculation"?) b) excluding the "speculation" phase from the "scientific method" (because that phase is without any empirical evidence) creates a "gray area" where something may or may not be scientific examination, plus (and even more important maybe): that phase DOES generates new hypotheses and/or contributes to a specific hypothesis with more than just -how to say it...- "speculations" (for the "thesis"/theory and/or the hypotheses themselves by "hypothesizing about the hypotheses"). I understand that in some level we must decide how to differentiate a not (yet) testable/falsifiable hypothesis (a -less important- issue of terminology - i advocate to use a nice Greek term for that phase, if we want to differentiate from "hypothesis", since "speculation" sounds... barbaric!), but we still can't even decide what is "science" (so we need articles in the NY Times from top researchers, like the one of this/. story). Anyway... i always believed that we need definite terms for such things, and i believe that we still don't have them!
Here is my approach to managing engineers.
1. Get the right people.
2. Get the right work.
3. Get obstacles out of the people's way.
4. Get myself our of the people's way.
I think you forgot the "0. Get a watch and a gun." item of your zero-based numbering list - love them or hate them, NaZi managers know how to manage (watch a sort online management video tutorial called Arbeit Macht Frei).
Figuring out how to test a speculation is certainly science.
Good - now we have to find a nice Greek word for that phase of the scientific method, because that barbaric "speculation" thing sounds.... barbaric!
Really, your question gets to the heart of the matter. Boiled down, TFA expresses concern that physicists are no longer distinguishing between speculation and hypothesis themselves, nor are they appropriately concerned for falsifiability.
I am glad you understand that i don't just try to play etymological games because i am a Greek (well, i do in some ways, but only because of my first part of my signature - and it is a good game to play!).
Note that there is nothing wrong with speculation. The wrong is in forgetting that it is merely speculation.
No problem with me my friend (and of course i prefer testable/falsifiable statements in science - since i am religious, in some other comments i made some reference to religion claiming that i have empirical knowledge of God, but i made clear that it is not *scientifically* empirical knowledge) - but many people think that a speculation is not part of science, even when someone speculates and/or examines the speculation in a quest for the scientific truth. So, i am serious dude: we need a Greek term... we can't advance science without Greek!
No my friend: i have empirical evidence of God (that i can reproduce... and even observe with other people!), but they are not *scientifically* empirical evidence (so you need to be a religious person -not just a scientist!- to do the "experiments") - i understand that this may upset some people, but 1+1=2... even if i claim something else!
Since the scientific method for a scientific theory starts with a scientific hypothesis (everything in bold is Greek - i am a Greek by the way) i don't understand why it is "bad form" or "abuse of the terminology" - "hypothesis" is translated to Greek as "speculation" and a "scientific hypothesis" is a (scientific) speculation.
That's quite normal, and the biggest problem of all fields, not just physics. To describe things precisely, instead of inventing terminology and providing a definition, words from normal everyday-languages are used, and defined to have a special meaning. It could be argued that it is something that just happend out of convenience, people working in a field were (ab)using the specific terms out of laziness. I prefer to think of it as protective, as a means to keep outsides out and laugh of them when they are not aware of field-specific meanings of terms.
Scientists should know at least 2 languages (one of them preferably Greek... or Latin, if they are not good enough!) - then they could understand that a hypothesis is a speculation! Again, from my sig: Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names."
1) hypothesis is something more than just speculation. +, under your thesis, that is, your basis for an argument/theory
The "hypo" in the "hypo-thesis" does not mean "under (the thesis)" (i.e., as a basis) in this case, but "less (of a thesis)" (i.e., it is not a thesis... yet!) - many hypotheses may exist at the same time, until one (or none!) becomes a thesis (i.e., theory).
2) translated *from* greek, not to.
Yes, you are right, thanks - i stuggle with my English, and translating English to Greek and back to English...!
It was just an example of empirical knowledge (that may be reproducible by anyone WHO IS RELIGIOUS by the way) - i made it clear that it is not scientific knowledge, so a scientific method can not be used to scientificaly reproduce the observations.
A "scientific hypothesis" starts as potentiallyfalsifiable - my "criticism" (and/or question) was about the difference (if any) between the terms "speculation" and hypothesis.
A hypothesis that is not testable or falsifiable is a belief. Whether that belief is about a deity or abstract theory, doesn't matter.
Is that an accepted terminology from scientists? Because since a belief can exist either with or without knowledge of the truth, a belief can be a scientific truth - i understand your point, but you don't understand why i try so hard to understand what is the difference (if any) between a "hypothesis" and a "speculation" (i don't find any!).
Antisthenes, as you describe his stance, sounds basically worthless, because he limits his philosophy to analytic truths, and by a Aristotelian definition as well.
When we can't even decide if science must be based on empirical processes, and if we can synthesize the scientific truth from non-empirical knowledge... then Antisthenes becomes a not so bad adviser!
A scientific speculation is really just a plain old speculation. It is something that you wonder if it is true, but cannot test. I suppose the scientific part is if you have some hope that some person may eventually think of a way to test it.
So, when someone (e.g., a scientist) is in the process of examining and/or trying to find if this "(plain old) speculation" can be testable/falsifiable (so it can be "upgrade" from "speculation" to "hypothesis"!) is that science or not? I understand that i over-react to this "hypothesis vs speculation" thing (or that i cause it - an anonymour wrote to me: "and this is why the world is going to shit. All the smart people are arguing about stupid stuff"!), but it is related to the story (science and the "scientific method" without the "empirical method") and i think that our basic terminology is problematic and still indefinite - my opinion is that your "(plain old) speculation" is just a "(plain old) potentially testable/falsifiable hypothesis", but calling it "speculation" (which is not even a definite term - you are the only who tried to define it for me, everyone else told me what a hypothesis is... ) we try to "purify science" by excluding the first step of the scientific method, i.e., hypothesizing about the hypothesis!
what is the difference (if any) between a "scientific hypothesis" and a "scientific speculation"?
My view is that a hypothesis is a very specific, testable/falsifiable claim. Speculation is an informal process which rhetorically or intellectually explores some unknown aspect of scientific endeavor, but it need not actually come up with hypotheses.
So... "speculation" definition: "a not testable/falsifiable (yet) hypothesis"? And you have to admit that this "My view is that" makes it a indefinite terminology!
makes a hypothesis about the universe that will be the first step *before* he tries to find if his hypothesis is falsifiable?
It's not a hypothesis until you have some way of theoretically determining to some degree whether it is true or false. Sure, you can make claims, which is a speculative activity, but you have to get to the point where you can think of theoretical ways to test those claims before they become hypotheses.
Is the process of *trying to find* "theoretical ways to test claims" part of the "scientific method" (i.e., even before the "from hypothesis/es to theory" process)?
I KNOW WHAT A HYPOTHESIS IS (even a scientific!): it is a speculation! Either we discuss about Greek or science! Right?
It doesn't sound like you did actually, but I hope the above post helped.
Well, i do know - it is many things i don't know (most things actually...), but this, i do know! In any case, yes, you are helpful.
(something i find very problematic and wrong, since... Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." !
I don't. "rtrgaerg" doesn't have an inherent or universal meaning. What words mean is what we decide they mean not some meaning from an unrelated human endeavor.
There are plenty of meaning collisions out there. Words like stress, field, normal, trace, etc have wildly different meanings depending on what particularly nomenclature you are using. For example, "stress" has radically different meanings in human physiology, linguistics, and mechanical engineering.
We may decide that in a certain domain the word "rtrgaerg" means something, while in some other domain means something else, BUT a) it is problematic, especially for more "universal" words (i.e., existing in many domains, plus used in the "natural" language - e.g., "hypothesis"), or in other words: it may be useful for "variables" when we try to define the "universe of discourse" of a domain, but wrong when we want to use some "constants" for hyper-domains like "science" b) it still not answers my "question" about the hyper-domain of "science": what is the difference (if any) between a "scientific hypothesis" and a "scientific speculation"?
we still have problems with that hypothesis term
Like what? It's pretty straightforward with a lot of philosophical work done by various parties. For example, the mentioned "falsifiability" is a characteristic ascribed to hypotheses by Karl Popper.
I KNOW WHAT A HYPOTHESIS IS (even a scientific!): it is a speculation! Either we discuss about Greek or science! Right?
do you have a definition for the "scientific speculation" term?
Whatever the dictionary says. I'm not particular nor do I give it any real weight. Could be a bunch of doped up hippies sitting on a sofa talking about the universe, assuming they didn't stray too far from the science.
The "dictionary" of natural language, e.g., English, says that "hypothesis" and "speculation" is the same! Can you tell me, if you believe it is true, why it is an "abuse of terminology" (as the person i replied to originaly claimed) to use the term "hypothesis" if one of those doped up hippies in your example, using the "scientific method" to examine the question about the universe, makes a hypothesis about the universe that will be the first step *before* he tries to find if his hypothesis is falsifiable? I mean that even trying to find if a hypothesis is falsifiable... surely is science!
Every one is explaining to me what a "(scientific) hypothesis" is (by the way: it is not some "ancient Greek" word but just Greek... we use this word in Greek everyday!), but none has explained to me what is the definition (if different from "(scientific) hypothesis") of the "(scientific) speculation"!
Ignore the fact that i am a Greek: since i still have a problem understanding the difference between a "scientific hypothesis" and a "scientific speculation" (and since this is very related to the story - i.e., "non-empirical scientific method", if such a thing exist!), can you provide a definite definition (!) for the term "scientific speculation" (e.g. is it a "non-falsifiable hypothesis")?
About that "is more religion than science" - from a comment i made somewhere else:
I just try to define "un-scientific" (e.g., in case of a non-empirical "scientific method") as... "un-scientific" (!), NOT as "religion", because religion, even while un-scientific, can be empirical if it is a belief *with* knowledge (of God) instead of a belief *without* knowledge (of God) - in my case, a (Greek Orthodox) Christian, my religious beliefs are because of my empirical knowledge of God (note: of course it is un-scientific knowledge/statement, and i can't use a scientific method to prove my claim, but still i know the truth empirically - no need for anyone to get upset by that statement, it is just my personal example for the definitions).
I understand that "scientific/technical terms in modern English often have different meanings from the Greek/Latin words they're derived from" (something i find very problematic and wrong, since... Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names."!), so that was why i used the word "criticism", especially about the indefinite terminology: we still have problems with that hypothesis term (and you surely understand what is my opinion) - do you have a definition for the "scientific speculation" term?
I just try to define "un-scientific" (e.g., in case of a non-empirical "scientific method") as... "un-scientific" (!), NOT as "religion", because religion, even while un-scientific, can be empirical if it is a belief *with* knowledge (of God) instead of a belief *without* knowledge (of God) - in my case, a (Greek Orthodox) Christian, my religious beliefs are because of my empirical knowledge of God (note: of course it is un-scientific knowledge/statement, and i can't use a scientific method to prove my claim, but still i know the truth empirically - no need for anyone to get upset by that statement, it is just my personal example for the definitions).
Slashdot Mirror
Now you're just waffling. You aren't related to that rubber faced twat of a finance minister, are you?
Every Greek is related to each other!
By the way: while he (Varoufakis) is more known to "barbarians" like you because of his exposure to international media, much worse than him exist in our current goverment... people that we Greeks have the "privilege to enjoy" all by ourselves - just think that Varoufakis is NOT a member of the parties currently in power! I believe (and hope) that this goverment will be out of power in a couple of months (we already started to talk about elections in Greece).
Google is more likely to hire a developer who's already proficient in the language since she would need less training."
*eye ball roll*
That was sexist!
Free/open source solutions are preferred, but we're prepared to spend money on a commercial solution if it meets our needs. What would you recommend?
Microsoft Office - Excel and/or Access...
Just a comment for that "you can be a Christian Buddhist" (since i am the Greek Orthodox Christian the GP was replied to) for those that may disagree with you: i am a (Greek Orthodox) Christian "Buddhist"... so, yes, you can be that kind of a Buddhist - of course you understand that i believe in (the living) God, but i don't find it theologicaly incompatible to accept "worldly" Buddhist truths.
I just wanted to support what you wrote, and maybe save some naive Buddhists who may think that they have to choose between heaven or earth!
That kind of "empiricism" (I think you're misusing the word "empirical") is scientifically meaningless.
Yes, my empiricism (i will use this word since you understand it - i was afraid to use it because of my bad English!) is scientifically meaningless (i already wrote: "of course it is un-scientific knowledge/statement, and i can't use a scientific method to prove my claim").
You claim empirical knowledge of a god, let's call him God A. If I claim empirical knowledge of some God B where it is obvious that A =/= B, how are you going to argue with me? You can't. This is what makes religion unscientific. There is no common ground of reproducible observation and experiment.
I agree with you (and it is theologically meaningless to argue about God A and God B since God = God!) - that is why i support my *NON-scientific* theological empiricism!
You first problem here is that you think that the word used is Greek just because is sounds like and is spelled exactly like the Greek one. In every language there are words like that, etymologically they can be traced to a language they were borrowed from but as they were brought into another language it adopted a different meaning. Hypothesis in English does not mean the same thing as Hypothesis in Greek.
You would have to excuse me but: i know Greek (i am Greek!) and (some bad) English, plus (i think that) i understand what a *scientific* hypothesis is (it means the same thing is means in Greek: hypothesis!!!) - so, this is not (just) an etymological debate, but something that has to do with my signature: Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." (please notice the *wisdom* word - and then read again the /. story!)
In science the word hypothesis as a specific meaning. Speculation doesn't have a defined meaning. In other contexts, other definitions may apply.
So: a "speculation" is actually a "hypothesis"?
All your points was good enough (and please don't think that i disagree with you - i just try to find a good answer for myself!), but i have some problems with a) terminology (what is the definite definition (!) of "-scientific- speculation"?) b) excluding the "speculation" phase from the "scientific method" (because that phase is without any empirical evidence) creates a "gray area" where something may or may not be scientific examination, plus (and even more important maybe): that phase DOES generates new hypotheses and/or contributes to a specific hypothesis with more than just -how to say it...- "speculations" (for the "thesis"/theory and/or the hypotheses themselves by "hypothesizing about the hypotheses"). I understand that in some level we must decide how to differentiate a not (yet) testable/falsifiable hypothesis (a -less important- issue of terminology - i advocate to use a nice Greek term for that phase, if we want to differentiate from "hypothesis", since "speculation" sounds... barbaric!), but we still can't even decide what is "science" (so we need articles in the NY Times from top researchers, like the one of this /. story). Anyway... i always believed that we need definite terms for such things, and i believe that we still don't have them!
Here is my approach to managing engineers. 1. Get the right people. 2. Get the right work. 3. Get obstacles out of the people's way. 4. Get myself our of the people's way.
I think you forgot the "0. Get a watch and a gun." item of your zero-based numbering list - love them or hate them, NaZi managers know how to manage (watch a sort online management video tutorial called Arbeit Macht Frei).
Figuring out how to test a speculation is certainly science.
Good - now we have to find a nice Greek word for that phase of the scientific method, because that barbaric "speculation" thing sounds.... barbaric!
Really, your question gets to the heart of the matter. Boiled down, TFA expresses concern that physicists are no longer distinguishing between speculation and hypothesis themselves, nor are they appropriately concerned for falsifiability.
I am glad you understand that i don't just try to play etymological games because i am a Greek (well, i do in some ways, but only because of my first part of my signature - and it is a good game to play!).
Note that there is nothing wrong with speculation. The wrong is in forgetting that it is merely speculation.
No problem with me my friend (and of course i prefer testable/falsifiable statements in science - since i am religious, in some other comments i made some reference to religion claiming that i have empirical knowledge of God, but i made clear that it is not *scientifically* empirical knowledge) - but many people think that a speculation is not part of science, even when someone speculates and/or examines the speculation in a quest for the scientific truth. So, i am serious dude: we need a Greek term... we can't advance science without Greek!
No my friend: i have empirical evidence of God (that i can reproduce... and even observe with other people!), but they are not *scientifically* empirical evidence (so you need to be a religious person -not just a scientist!- to do the "experiments") - i understand that this may upset some people, but 1+1=2... even if i claim something else!
Since the scientific method for a scientific theory starts with a scientific hypothesis (everything in bold is Greek - i am a Greek by the way) i don't understand why it is "bad form" or "abuse of the terminology" - "hypothesis" is translated to Greek as "speculation" and a "scientific hypothesis" is a (scientific) speculation.
That's quite normal, and the biggest problem of all fields, not just physics. To describe things precisely, instead of inventing terminology and providing a definition, words from normal everyday-languages are used, and defined to have a special meaning. It could be argued that it is something that just happend out of convenience, people working in a field were (ab)using the specific terms out of laziness. I prefer to think of it as protective, as a means to keep outsides out and laugh of them when they are not aware of field-specific meanings of terms.
Scientists should know at least 2 languages (one of them preferably Greek... or Latin, if they are not good enough!) - then they could understand that a hypothesis is a speculation! Again, from my sig: Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names."
1) hypothesis is something more than just speculation. +, under your thesis, that is, your basis for an argument/theory
The "hypo" in the "hypo-thesis" does not mean "under (the thesis)" (i.e., as a basis) in this case, but "less (of a thesis)" (i.e., it is not a thesis... yet!) - many hypotheses may exist at the same time, until one (or none!) becomes a thesis (i.e., theory).
2) translated *from* greek, not to.
Yes, you are right, thanks - i stuggle with my English, and translating English to Greek and back to English...!
"empirical knowledge of God"
you're a deluded idiot
come back to us when you find your way out of that cave
Come back to me when you have some scientificaly empirical method to prove me wrong...
It was just an example of empirical knowledge (that may be reproducible by anyone WHO IS RELIGIOUS by the way) - i made it clear that it is not scientific knowledge, so a scientific method can not be used to scientificaly reproduce the observations.
A "scientific hypothesis" starts as potentially falsifiable - my "criticism" (and/or question) was about the difference (if any) between the terms "speculation" and hypothesis.
A hypothesis that is not testable or falsifiable is a belief. Whether that belief is about a deity or abstract theory, doesn't matter.
Is that an accepted terminology from scientists? Because since a belief can exist either with or without knowledge of the truth, a belief can be a scientific truth - i understand your point, but you don't understand why i try so hard to understand what is the difference (if any) between a "hypothesis" and a "speculation" (i don't find any!).
Antisthenes, as you describe his stance, sounds basically worthless, because he limits his philosophy to analytic truths, and by a Aristotelian definition as well.
When we can't even decide if science must be based on empirical processes, and if we can synthesize the scientific truth from non-empirical knowledge... then Antisthenes becomes a not so bad adviser!
and this is why the world is going to shit. All the smart people are arguing about stupid stuff.
That was my fault, and i am not so smart, so...!
But in any case: good (and definite) terminology IS good (and definite...) science.
A scientific speculation is really just a plain old speculation. It is something that you wonder if it is true, but cannot test. I suppose the scientific part is if you have some hope that some person may eventually think of a way to test it.
So, when someone (e.g., a scientist) is in the process of examining and/or trying to find if this "(plain old) speculation" can be testable/falsifiable (so it can be "upgrade" from "speculation" to "hypothesis"!) is that science or not? I understand that i over-react to this "hypothesis vs speculation" thing (or that i cause it - an anonymour wrote to me: "and this is why the world is going to shit. All the smart people are arguing about stupid stuff"!), but it is related to the story (science and the "scientific method" without the "empirical method") and i think that our basic terminology is problematic and still indefinite - my opinion is that your "(plain old) speculation" is just a "(plain old) potentially testable/falsifiable hypothesis", but calling it "speculation" (which is not even a definite term - you are the only who tried to define it for me, everyone else told me what a hypothesis is... ) we try to "purify science" by excluding the first step of the scientific method, i.e., hypothesizing about the hypothesis!
what is the difference (if any) between a "scientific hypothesis" and a "scientific speculation"?
My view is that a hypothesis is a very specific, testable/falsifiable claim. Speculation is an informal process which rhetorically or intellectually explores some unknown aspect of scientific endeavor, but it need not actually come up with hypotheses.
So... "speculation" definition: "a not testable/falsifiable (yet) hypothesis"? And you have to admit that this "My view is that" makes it a indefinite terminology!
makes a hypothesis about the universe that will be the first step *before* he tries to find if his hypothesis is falsifiable?
It's not a hypothesis until you have some way of theoretically determining to some degree whether it is true or false. Sure, you can make claims, which is a speculative activity, but you have to get to the point where you can think of theoretical ways to test those claims before they become hypotheses.
Is the process of *trying to find* "theoretical ways to test claims" part of the "scientific method" (i.e., even before the "from hypothesis/es to theory" process)?
I KNOW WHAT A HYPOTHESIS IS (even a scientific!): it is a speculation! Either we discuss about Greek or science! Right?
It doesn't sound like you did actually, but I hope the above post helped.
Well, i do know - it is many things i don't know (most things actually...), but this, i do know! In any case, yes, you are helpful.
(something i find very problematic and wrong, since... Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." !
I don't. "rtrgaerg" doesn't have an inherent or universal meaning. What words mean is what we decide they mean not some meaning from an unrelated human endeavor.
There are plenty of meaning collisions out there. Words like stress, field, normal, trace, etc have wildly different meanings depending on what particularly nomenclature you are using. For example, "stress" has radically different meanings in human physiology, linguistics, and mechanical engineering.
We may decide that in a certain domain the word "rtrgaerg" means something, while in some other domain means something else, BUT a) it is problematic, especially for more "universal" words (i.e., existing in many domains, plus used in the "natural" language - e.g., "hypothesis"), or in other words: it may be useful for "variables" when we try to define the "universe of discourse" of a domain, but wrong when we want to use some "constants" for hyper-domains like "science" b) it still not answers my "question" about the hyper-domain of "science": what is the difference (if any) between a "scientific hypothesis" and a "scientific speculation"?
we still have problems with that hypothesis term
Like what? It's pretty straightforward with a lot of philosophical work done by various parties. For example, the mentioned "falsifiability" is a characteristic ascribed to hypotheses by Karl Popper.
I KNOW WHAT A HYPOTHESIS IS (even a scientific!): it is a speculation! Either we discuss about Greek or science! Right?
do you have a definition for the "scientific speculation" term?
Whatever the dictionary says. I'm not particular nor do I give it any real weight. Could be a bunch of doped up hippies sitting on a sofa talking about the universe, assuming they didn't stray too far from the science.
The "dictionary" of natural language, e.g., English, says that "hypothesis" and "speculation" is the same! Can you tell me, if you believe it is true, why it is an "abuse of terminology" (as the person i replied to originaly claimed) to use the term "hypothesis" if one of those doped up hippies in your example, using the "scientific method" to examine the question about the universe, makes a hypothesis about the universe that will be the first step *before* he tries to find if his hypothesis is falsifiable? I mean that even trying to find if a hypothesis is falsifiable... surely is science!
Every one is explaining to me what a "(scientific) hypothesis" is (by the way: it is not some "ancient Greek" word but just Greek... we use this word in Greek everyday!), but none has explained to me what is the definition (if different from "(scientific) hypothesis") of the "(scientific) speculation"!
About that "is more religion than science" - from a comment i made somewhere else:
I just try to define "un-scientific" (e.g., in case of a non-empirical "scientific method") as... "un-scientific" (!), NOT as "religion", because religion, even while un-scientific, can be empirical if it is a belief *with* knowledge (of God) instead of a belief *without* knowledge (of God) - in my case, a (Greek Orthodox) Christian, my religious beliefs are because of my empirical knowledge of God (note: of course it is un-scientific knowledge/statement, and i can't use a scientific method to prove my claim, but still i know the truth empirically - no need for anyone to get upset by that statement, it is just my personal example for the definitions).
I understand that "scientific/technical terms in modern English often have different meanings from the Greek/Latin words they're derived from" (something i find very problematic and wrong, since... Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." !), so that was why i used the word "criticism" , especially about the indefinite terminology: we still have problems with that hypothesis term (and you surely understand what is my opinion) - do you have a definition for the "scientific speculation" term?
I just try to define "un-scientific" (e.g., in case of a non-empirical "scientific method") as... "un-scientific" (!), NOT as "religion", because religion, even while un-scientific, can be empirical if it is a belief *with* knowledge (of God) instead of a belief *without* knowledge (of God) - in my case, a (Greek Orthodox) Christian, my religious beliefs are because of my empirical knowledge of God (note: of course it is un-scientific knowledge/statement, and i can't use a scientific method to prove my claim, but still i know the truth empirically - no need for anyone to get upset by that statement, it is just my personal example for the definitions).