It is the scientific method that makes a tenuous claim before the experimental proof, what makes a good scientist is that the hypothesis is usually accompanied by some deep insight well conceptualized and meaningful through direct observations. so to save the scientist from repeated hypothesizing that fails rigor and validation by experimentation. the heuristic of insights toward more and more hypothesis landing in the validated world is a practice, it’s not something taught, it’s something practiced. And that practice is in the courage to remain and observe, and allow perception to like what it likes and see what it sees… to let it dance across the paper and predict and consider.
Over time, even the lowest of the trained, may be an inspiration and line up close with even the most accomplished academics or researchers or mathematicians of the day the scientist, the analyst, the priest, the monk… their skill does not lie in the rigor, nor the validation, their strength lies in the ability to see where this phenomena that is passing goes, where and what it is, and where it went and what happened to it. the rigor and validation pay the bills to allow further degrees of freedom of investigation. the paying of the bills comes from society realizing the utility of having these individuals around, and part of that payment comes in the form of aids and additional hands, “scientists”, yet not, calculating, theorizing, solving, testing, validating the very hypothesis of the scientists grand. just as a scientist observes phenomena directly with senses and instruments… so too does the arahat.