On Sep 12, 4:27 pm, Antares 531 swbell.net> wrote:

Perhaps this borrowed analogy will help.

Joseki359 /
: It seems you believe that science must directly observe a
: phenomenon before we can conclude anything about it. This is
: simply wrong, what we need to do is make predictions that can
: differentiate between two hypotheses, based on effects of the
: phenomenon that can be tested. As an extremely simplistic and
: rather poor analogy, but one I believe conveys the essence of my
: argument I put out the following.
:
: If a bicycle weaves a trail through an earthen path we do not
: have to directly observe the bicycle to know that it was there
: and what its likely structure would be, we simply have to
: predict, based on the evidence left behind what possible type of
: contraption it is. We can even bring in other lines of evidence
: such as patterns left by motorcycles, tricycles, cars, trucks
: and unicycles. Even if we have never seen a bicycle before we
: can make predictions that it is a two wheeled contraption, with
: wheels of a specific width and tread, that it is front steered,
: which direction it was headed and even whether it was
: accelerating or decelerating.
:
: Much can be learned by traces left by the phenomenon. This is
: how we learned of the structure of atoms, structure of DNA, the
: existence of subatomic particles and even quantum effects.
:
: Direct observation is simply not necessary and is seldom seen in
: science.
:
: Nor do we have to have 100%% confidence in a theory to conclude
: it is the best explanation.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG