[Olog-hai]

“Concerning natural processes” is fine to say (not without defining same, however—such is strictly within the bounds of observation, so please see the definition of the phrase), but conjecture does not make for good science (or science at all) and by definition has to be excluded.

It is only anti-science people that try to disguise conjecture as science.

[BroJoeK]

Olog-hai: "...conjecture does not make for good science (or science at all) and by definition has to be excluded."

"Conjecture" so-called, is certainly a part of the scientific process -- it's the root source of first hypotheses and if confirmed, theories.
In other words: without early conjecture, you'll get no eventual hypotheses & theories.

Olog-hai: "It is only anti-science people that try to disguise conjecture as science."

That issue, of course, is not whether "conjecture" is ever legitimate, but whether it has been properly identified as such, and only used as appropriate -- i.e., in a summary of potential implications.

This thread's article is a media news report on scientific results, one written to interest general readers, not duplicate a scientific paper.