Answer: reliable but not valid
Explanation: Reliability does not translate to validity. This can be proved using the behavior of John's oven which has exhibited consistency in functionality and performance which defines that the readings and output are reliable. However, even though John's oven has exhibited constant output reliability due to its ability to consistently give similar readings or performance levels for about a month, the consistent performance which has been showcased by the oven seems to be faulty as food seem to get burnt regularly. This consistent output or performance level lacks validity as the temperature Guage incorrectly shows temperature which is 50 degrees cooler than the actual oven temperature.
Despite wide recognition that speculation is critical for successful science, philosophers have attended little to it. When they have, speculation has been characterized in narrowly epistemic terms: a hypothesis is speculative due to its (lack of) evidential support. These ‘evidence-first’ accounts provide little guidance for what makes speculation productive or egregious, nor how to foster the former while avoiding the latter. I examine how scientists discuss speculation and identify various functions speculations play. On this basis, I develop a ‘function-first’ account of speculation. This analysis grounds a richer discussion of when speculation is egregious and when it is productive, based in both fine-grained analysis of the speculation’s purpose, and what I call the ‘epistemic situation’ scientists face.
<span>The "distance zone"
identified by Edward Hall extending 4 to 12 feet and being reserved for such
things as job interviews is called the social distance.
To add, social distance is </span><span>the perceived or desired degree of remoteness
between a member of one social group and the members of another, as evidenced
in the level of intimacy tolerated between them.</span>
