(Apologies about reordering your statements slightly.)
> There's a reason practitioners are blinded in a double blind trial.
Well, yes. That's to avoid experimental bias by the experimenters themselves.
> You can say "this is probably wrong" before you start experimenting, but it's not scientific at all.
There's a threshold before you even engage with speculation. Speculation is good, but as a scientist one must decide to what to spend time on.
> [...] as some might hate to admit it, it is simply based on logic and intuition.[...]
What to do experimentation, trials, etc. on is mostly based on pure conjecture. But that's not contrary to anything that's been said ITT. Conjectures generate experiments, but these conjectures usually have *some* grounding in known physics, biology, whatever. (This a very poor explication of David Deutsch's brilliant exposition on this point of epistomology in The Beginning of Infinity.)
> There's a reason practitioners are blinded in a double blind trial.
Well, yes. That's to avoid experimental bias by the experimenters themselves.
> You can say "this is probably wrong" before you start experimenting, but it's not scientific at all.
There's a threshold before you even engage with speculation. Speculation is good, but as a scientist one must decide to what to spend time on.
> [...] as some might hate to admit it, it is simply based on logic and intuition.[...]
What to do experimentation, trials, etc. on is mostly based on pure conjecture. But that's not contrary to anything that's been said ITT. Conjectures generate experiments, but these conjectures usually have *some* grounding in known physics, biology, whatever. (This a very poor explication of David Deutsch's brilliant exposition on this point of epistomology in The Beginning of Infinity.)