You can only make conclusions from what the data actually tells you. If the conclusion doesn't come from the gathered data then there was really no point to the experiment.
Like for example, if you find a mysterious new object and push on it to see what it feels like, and it feels squishy inside, you don't go on to conclude that it is filled with sponge cake because that isn't something the data tells you. You don't know that it is filled with sponge cake - you just know that it is apparently soft inside.
Edit: also for example when I raised dwarf hamsters, I figured out what makes them act aggressively and what results in getting defensive bites from them. I could tell when they were aggravated and what they would probably do before they did it, but I didn't claim to really know how they felt or what their motivations were.
I chalked it up to them also really not understanding me either. They probably didn't know why this giant thing is handling them, and their eyesight and such is rather poor anyway.
So what I ended up doing to tame them and get them to be docile in my hands is just let them bite me. I figured that if I yelled in pain when they bite (they bite hard and draw blood) it could stress them out, and if I put them down as a reaction to the bite then that would train them that biting makes me go away. So I just didn't react to the biting and after a few painful bites, they stopped, as if they knew that it doesn't help and that I'm not going to hurt them anyway. Eventually I got them to come into my hand without having to pick them up.