James Gorman, in the Tuesday, May 29th Science Section of the NY Times, argues for the scientific value of speculation. It is, he writes, “an essential part of science.” Comparing two recent papers on the domestication of dogs, he describes one, by a team of scientists that concludes we don’t know when and where dogs were domesticated and another by an independent scientist who proposes a possible story-line if dogs and Neanderthals co-existed.This theoretical paper is not “meant to come to any conclusion but to prompt thought and more research.” He goes on:

“How is one to judge the value of speculation? The questions readers ought to ask when confronting a “what-if” as opposed to “what-is” article are: Does the writer make it clear what is known, what is probable, and what is merely possible?” Apparently, in the case of the dog paper under discussion, she does.

The principal author of the research paper is quoted saying that he loves speculation and admires the “lovely chain of reasoning” of the second paper (though he questions its underlying assumptions). Still, it is refreshing to read a supportive argument for informed conjecture. It’s nice to know that scientists who are up to their eyeballs in data see the value in imagining a theory rather than deducing one.