You sure get grumpy when issues such as these are raised. I am not belittling your intelligence, many philosophers disagree on the issues that we are discussing and so I don't feel giving my perspective in complete is belittling. If I have given you a feeling that I am trying to be an obscurantist or belittle your views than I apologize.
>>>The only thing I can conclude is that you are so afraid of what I am saying that you can not allow any serious issues to be presented. You seem to be willing to grasp at any straw to avoid facing the fact that there might exist a possibility of error in modern science.>H: Errors are often more likely during inferences, especially if the wrong assumptions are held (e.g., the hearing aid battery is fully charged. D: So, then let us not make any; let us avoid anything which requires inference!>>Again, the issue under discussion here is, "I have one very simple point to make! Science has set as its goal to explain what is observed. I have presented a mental model which includes everything which is observed. My position is, that by doing so, I have not constrained science’s ability to explain anything. Do you or do you not accept that statement as logically correct?">You make the appearance of holding fast to the idea that, if a mental model includes *everything which is observed* and nothing more, it follows logically that the model constrains science’s ability to explain *everything which is observed*: i.e., in a nutshell, you are stating that knowing what is to be explained makes it impossible to explain it!