With respect, this is word salad--I cannot fathom your point here.
Atoms are not directly observable, but close scientific observation of a range of phenomena allow us to infer, not only their existence, but their properties, and to make accurate predications of their behaviour.
What 'unobservable phenomena' do you mean to indicate?<<
Of course it is word salad to you. You inserted the word "directly" to make my original post fit your bias. That is strictly your problem, not mine.
Your last question, is hilarious. If it is not observable, it is not a phenomenon. Duh! Thought experiments without observable phenomena to go with them are not phenomena.
I do appreciate the sophomoric comments on atoms. An inference using phenomena we believe we understand is fine. The next step would be to say we understand everything using scientific scrutiny. Is that the road you want to go down on? Do you like quantuum mechanics as a total solution forever?
Study more epistemology and then maybe some psychology on why people unconsciously ignore things or insert things (like directly) to suit their own bias. You might have some fun!
DK
Scientists have successfully ignored epistomology and most other isms for centuries. Too busy solving actual problems.
Do you wish to argue that biology is not making progress or acquiring knowledge? You certainly welcome to set up a competetive shop. There are hundreds of well funded religious colleges.
I know some of them are teaching creationism, but I don't see any massive research output.
I was actually requesting some enlightenment from you on the meaning of your posting: the 'directly' was implied by the syntax of your sentence, and I was asking for clarification. Your original post:
I love the term supernatural. If it is a phenomenon that occurs and is inexplicable, by current standards, it is still a phenomenon. OTOH, if it is not observable, by current standards, it is not a phenomenon. It is not a very useful term. But folks sure bandy it about pretty loosely.
Let me set out my attempt to parse your sense here--which may well be wrong, which is why I asked for you to untangle it for me:
1. The term 'supernatural' is too ambiguous to be useful. To illustrate:
2. If event 'x' is a 'phenomenon' (an object of perception) but the [cause or nature] of 'x' cannot be explained by current knowledge, it is assigned the term 'supernatural.'
3. On the other hand, if 'x' occurs but is not 'observable' by currently available means of observation, then is not a 'phenomenon' (an object of perception).
Statement 3 is a meaningless tautology--which I assumed was not your intention. And it also implies the absurdity of 'unobservable phenomena,' which is why the phrase was set out in single quote marks.
With respect, you have misread my request for clarification, and I would still be interested to grasp your sense--unless you have determined that I am too 'sophmoric' for your instruction here.
The next step would be to say we understand everything using scientific scrutiny.
The closest to that claim might be a belief(!) that all knowledge is obtainable exclusively by science-- or perhaps only the findings of science qualify, by definition, as knowledge. Neither of these is among my own beliefs.
Is that the road you want to go down on? Do you like quantuum mechanics as a total solution forever?
I don't agree with your premise here; but in any event, if one choose to seek knowledge, one cannot prejudge what one finds. And I do not see how we can choose to only 'know' that which we find agreeable