I'd put out that observation and our internal explanations tell us what is, but they're terribly unreliable when used in isolation.
The scientific process guides us to ignore our own sense of "what should be" when encountering something new, which we have not studied. There is no reason to think that things we have not yet studied will fall into categories of understanding which we have already established. Yet, it is something our minds seem pulled toward.
I have certainly built up a bias over many years toward the Standard Model of Particle Physics + GR w/ {Lambda}CDM*; I try to explain everything using that model. It will fail me when I encounter something beyond the model, and I know it's incomplete, but I don't assume anything new to me is new to the model. It is why science is necessary. It is why reproducible predictions are essential.
When you observe something new, or unexpected, it is easy to find an incomplete explanation, which fits some, but not all of your observations. The conversation with other honest, open-minded observers is essential to brainstorm your way through all of your observations and to think of an explanation which fits all of them.
I encourage my lab students to use every identifiable resource in the room to help them understand what they're doing. This primarily include keeping an open conversation with their lab partners, but that's often not enough. It is not cheating to talk to other lab groups. It is part of the process.
*
Standard Model of Particle Physics = All the Quantum Physics
GR = Einstein's General Relativity
{Lambda} = Dark Energy
CDM = Cold, Dark Matter
Reply With Quote