[WinterMount223]

Not everything is able to be reproduced scientifically and reversed engineered. It’s not less real because of that.

You may know how to ride a bike. Can you reverse engineer and explain in an algorithmic way how to ride a bike? No. Does that invalidate the fact that you can indeed ride a bike? Of course not.

Edit: do not fixate on the bike. It was just an example. Write a symphony, create a joke, understand irony.

[moconnor]

Of course you can do that. You can even measure the angles and forces involved. There is no “unexplained physics” in bicycle riding.

Dowsing for corpses, on the other hand, absolutely requires new physics, because the pseudo-physical explanations offered around piezoelectricity and people having different voltages are deeply inconsistent with our understanding of physics.

[amerkhalid]

I agree that there are things that are true but not explainable like at the edge of our knowledge, black holes, quantum physics etc.

But riding a bike seems very easy algorithm. All these self balancing scooters, remote controlled toys, seems like perfect examples of what you get when you reverse engineer bikes.

[staticassertion]

Of course we can reverse engineer and describe how bikes work...

Anyway, the fact that we can not formally prove all true things doesn't really matter. That doesn't make all things equally valid. We find supporting evidence, we build conceptual models, we test the periphery of systems.

[croon]

Even if you could not explain how you ride a bike, you could still reproduce it scientifically. You don't have to understand something to reproduce it, only what parameters are needed for reproducing it.

You could observe the sun rising and setting long before understanding the revolutions of our planet.

If someone can do something, you can reproduce it. That's true for bike-riding, but apparently not true for dowsing.