[rez]

Quote by: Technosoul The building of a rocketship and related things, such as computers, are inventions and not explainations.

Get with it everybody. Rocketships and Computers were imagined ideas constructed with the clues given by reality. It was the explanations that were given that enabled people to physically construct a machine that could process numbers. It is about taking something not found in nature, and then later constructing something to perform a certain function.

A good Detective would hunt for things or events that are detectable, and find what he was seeking.

A good detective would also hunt for relevant information that may or may not have something to do with the case.

About which choice they made about how to land on the moon, well, they put someone in charge of making a choice and did it the way the boss told them too.

No, they chose the answer that actually came out to work the best. There were many scientists working on the explanation, each working together to come to an answer that actually WORKED. An answer that actually explained how to do something.

You must put someone in charge, someone who will be responsible for both making the right choice, or taking the blame for the wrong choice. The boss was partly lucky because the landing gear did not sink deep into top soil (cosmic dust) when they landed on the moon.

Someone is put in charge to oversee how the explanations are moving along. This objective is to try to make the complex turn out to be simple and easy flowing.

Is somene in charge of the universe, did someone create the universe like we create rocketships? Most scientists agree that the universe was not scientifically created by an intelligence.

"Is someone in charge of the universe" is a question. When you problem solve, you have to ask questions that are most relevant to the problem. So that means you have to know something that is relevant to the problem. What is most relevant to the problem that would lead you to such a question? What makes you think that comparing a rocketship to a universe is sensible?

The jury did not see the crime, they must imagine how it happened based on the evidence the dectective uncovered, as compared to their own personality trates and experiences. That is why lawyers are so carefull about jury selecton. So here you have two different kinds of a jury, the religious jury and the scientific jury. They will not deliver the same judgement. But wait, you might have a 3rd choice for a jury, one that is not bias ether way.

Wrong. Way wrong. The jury is going to make the selection based on what works.

When you say you have the goods, you deliver the goods. Simple as that. Are you suggesting people are unable to distinguish between what works and what does not work?

And so which explanation is the best is not as important

The best explanations explains what was set out to be explained.

And yet, science has found no gene that makes people religious, or one that makes people think in a scientific manner, so I guess we are stuck with a bias population containing a diversity of opinion.

This is nonsense. Investigation has found that humans are logical in nature, and no matter how artistic one is they are still logical. That is how things are processed in our brains.

So my answer to your question is, you cannot currently have an answer to what method of explanation is best suited for everyone. Only which method is agreeable with your own bias.

Stop thinking in your head that the explanation has to "please" people. No. The explanation has to explain something. The explanation is not suppose to appeal to people it is suppose to explain an event.