The "Unobservables" Of Contemporary Scientific Paradigms

Most scientific paradigms are full of unobservable components even though pure science deals only with that which is observable through sensory perceptions, and modern scientific theories are certainly among those riddled with them.  Part of the problem is that science has become misunderstood to entail a social process that includes extensive discussion with or about renowned figures, rather than being rightly understood to only encompass direct observations of the external world through the senses.  The numerous "unobservables" of common beliefs are made popular because of this faulty emphasis.

There are plenty of examples of unobservables I could point out: quarks, recessive genes, black holes, and dark matter are just some of the predominantly accepted or theoretical material items of the current age.  Many professional scientists and non-scientists alike--the distinction here only pertains to having a formal job related to scientific research, as everyone has to deal with scientific experiences in everyday life to some extent--would say they believe in at least some of these things.  Many modern Westerners like to think of themselves as if they are consistent sensory empiricists, ignoring the immateriality and extra-sensory of logic, space, and their own consciousness, only to believe in the existence of physical things they cannot even see or touch!

Have you ever seen a black hole?  Not a pictorial representation of how they are thought to look, but an actual black hole itself?  What about quarks, much less the nucleus of an atom or the surrounding electrons?  Each of these things can still exist whether or not they have been observed by a given person because it does not follow from a lack of proof that something does not exist, of course; the fact still remains that a large number of physical things that cannot be directly observed or proven to exist by logical necessity are taken for granted by people who do not even seriously contemplate the epistemology of sensory perceptions and the distinction between reason and science.

It is not even necessary to focus merely on the fact that each of these could hypothetically be observed with the right sensory capacity or technological devices; even if that is the case, they cannot be observed by many of the people who claim to believe in them!  This is especially ironic and hypocritical for sensory empiricists who specifically hold to the self-refuting idea that all knowledge comes from the bodily senses, as opposed to the only self-verifying things in all of epistemology: reason and introspection.  Sensory empiricists who assume that the unverifiable claims of popular figures that black holes, among other things, exist are true are just committing additional errors beyond the philosophical heresies of sensory empiricism itself.

Almost all arguments and evidences for the presence of such unobservables reduce down to sheer hearsay rooted in the popularity of a certain scientist or idea.  When the very nature of sensory perceptions is that they cannot prove that specific objects or structures exist even when one is looking right at them, belief in unobservables is all the more asinine.  Belief that scientific evidence points in a given direction is logically sound as long as one encounters the evidence; belief that even the objects one looks at every day exist is illogical even before black holes and electrons or quarks are brought up.