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?
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