The discovery of Pluto

[Dave]

Was made by astronomers observing the "erratic" flight pattern of Neptune
and Uranus.  Something that the astronomers hadn't seen until then was
causing these planets to waver in their orbit slightly.  So they said
"maybe something is out there," they looked, and found something.  They
found a planet, wandering right where they predicted that it would be.
They called it Pluto

So is that kind of science Ad-Hockery, or hand-waving?  They postulated
something, then they found it.

(somebody show me gravity too, not a representation of it, nor a "display
of its effects")  We have the calculation of the acceleration of a
falling object(at sea level), -4.9t^2 also, which is a formalization of what
happens.  If something falls on the moon, and accelerates to the (ground)
at a different rate, should we formulate a new theory of gravity?

Does life happen in equations, or are they merely some sort of human
adaptation and effort to describe the world in which we live?

Many researchers follow different approaches, and these approaches don't
even look at the same range of data.  We all know what I'm talking about
here.  To assume that one can't learn from the other is rather arrogant,
in my opinion. (this goes both ways).

How can we find out/describe what the acquisition of a language is, when we
don't have a hard-and-fast, cut-and-dried, analysis of what ADULT language is?

Dave