Suppose you watched a game on TV (sports, or abstract strategy, like chess, whatever catches your fancy), and wanted to know all about it. There is a book written by the person who invented the game, but it focuses more on his relationship with his family than on the game, and only mentions some of the moves in passing, without explaining the rule that makes them possible. So you start watching more games on TV and making observations. You notice that when certain conditions apply a particular rule always happens, and when other conditions occur, another play never happens. Slowly you build up some idea what the rules are. You may occasionally get a rule slightly wrong, but eventually correct it. This is science. It examines rules, using examples of actual plays, because there is no rulebook.
Yes, there has to be starting assumptions. There are two. First, if there are more than one possible explanations, assume the simpler one. If later developments require it, you can always consider the more complicated one later. That is why we accepted Newtonian physics for so long before we switched to Relativity. Even now, we use the Newtonian equations more often than the Relativity ones, because they are easier and most of the time they give the same answer (within the margin of error of our measuring devices).
The other is to assume that we are talking about the normal rules of natural law. Supernatural events are ignored, because they are "cheating" and do not help us to understand the rules. If a children's coach allows the occasional "do-over" it does not follow the rules, and does not help us to understand them.
Your assumption that anything we can't completely understand is proof of a supernatural interference in Nature is not science. It is giving up on the search for knowledge.
Upvote
0
