Philosophy has its subdivision called metaphysics, which deals with the topics beyond appearance. It uses intuition, logic and rational analysis on the linguistic behavior and expressions.
So does science, with the added bonus of substantiated knowledge
Science cannot say anything about the objects they cannot observe.
That’s just not true. Many solid conclusions have been made using indirect evidence, inference and mathematical models.
Do you think that Watson and Crick actually saw the DNA double helix?
They are not solid conclusions. They are hypotheses.
Either they saw something via microscope, or again it is just a hypotheses.
Well, no. That is just not so.
If it was not a result from observation and verification, then it cannot be science. Any claims from imagination is either religion or superstition. Or just an opinion.
And yet, it appears to me that that is what you have done, with that first sentence in the above quote. To set aside things temporarily, to enhance focus and clarity, is something we all do, because we must, or we must consider the entire Universe. But you seem to be doing a bit more than that here. You seem to want to focus on a small part of a human bodymind as though that small part was independent, suitable to be considered alone, without context.
But maybe I’ve misunderstood your words?
And yet this is a philosophy forum, not a discussion forum for science…?
If you think that only direct observation counts as science, and everything else is “imagination” or “religion” or “opinion” that pretty well means that nothing in modern science should count as science. Most of physics and biology would be disqualified.
With reference to Watson and Crick, they discovered the double helix structure of DNA through inference to the best explanation from indirect evidence (see the experiments of Franklin, Wilkins, Chargaff, as well as biochemical results that provided the bond angles and distances)
Anyway, that position – that a statement is cognitively meaningful only if it can be verified through empirical observation – called naïve verificationism – seems to put you in the camp of the logical positivists. Am I reading you right?
Yes, it appears so. I was just putting forward my methodology in philosophizing. If you don’t agree, then you don’t need to accept it of course.
I was defining what science should be.
Do you recall Newton was observing his apple tree for ages to figure out about the law of gravity?
Yes, some scientific theories can be made up in the arm chair with speculation, but it wouldn’t attract interest or agreements on it.
I am not sure on naive verificationism. It sounds too naive. No, I don’t belong to any camps. I am just a hobby reader.
Seeing an apple fall from the tree might have been a bit of inspiration, but it did nothing to contribute to devising the law of gravity, which Newton developed over years, relying on the groundwork laid out by Kepler, Galileo and Descartes, and then doing a whole lot of mathematics
No, they can’t. You’ve confused the common usage of the word “theory” with a “scientific theory” - which is a set of conclusions based on a broad scope of evidence
I love to read, too.
It sounds like your post is off-topic for the OP. If you open a new OP with the topic, we can discuss further there.