[ichabod1]

It’s always seemed to me that good science would instead attempt to develop new theories that explain what we can observe, rather than assuming stuff exists that we can’t see

Doesn't bother me a bit. It attempts to define the "known knowns", "known unknowns", and "unknown unknowns". People in general though have no concept of the distances involved in all of our observations, how little we can really see, and even if they DO have some clue about that, how little we know about the nature of time, and the fact that we could meet someone in space but be billions of years apaart in time.

[UCANSEE2]

and the fact that we could meet someone in space but be billions of years apaart in time.

Just the other day, scientists saw a supernova explosion as it happened. Well, except that it happened 2 billion years ago.

'When' it is, depends really on 'Where' you are, doesn't it?

Either that or 'when' is truly meaningless, and only 'where' and 'who' are important.