[donh]

Not at all. Galileo witnessed the revolution of the earth around the sun first-hand.

Really? Where did he stand to do that? Mars?

Much of science is built upon first-hand observation. In fact, it really doesn't have anything else to go on.

Well now, what do you mean, exactly, by first hand observation? Is it first hand observation when I record a stellar event that happened 200 million years ago using gravitational lensing and tacking into an array of photogate amplifiers into an image cleanup program?

Is it first hand observation when I use a scientific oscilloscope to characterize a signal that only lasts for a few nanoseconds?

Science, by definition, entails first-hand human observation and reporting.

As you are defining it, no it doesn't. You cannot reasonably assert definitions of science most scientists would consider childishly silly.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You cannot reasonably assert definitions of science most scientists would consider childishly silly.

On the contrary, you cannot assert human science extends beyond what humans have been able to observe first hand and report. Where assumptions are made regarding past or future events, the human mind is all there is, and the human mind according to the story of evolution, wasn't around 4.5 billion years ago.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Well now, what do you mean, exactly, by first hand observation?

Existence as a single, human, observer. Are you something more?