To illustrate, a scientist may be able to describe every molecule in a chocolate cake, but will his analysis reveal why the cake was made or for whom? For answers to questions like that—which most people would regard as the more important ones—he needs to consult the supposed personal memoirs allegedly written down by the bakers anonymous assistant decades after his passing which were then poorly copied by hand by other anonymous people, then translated into a different language by someone who claimed to be the baker's great grandchild who we'll assume didn't alter the memoirs at all even though HE wanted to inherit the cake and was not above murdering all his living relatives to get it.
These memoirs were later translated again into other languages.
Because the the baker had his memoirs written in a bizzare form of piglatin at the time, only his self-designated representatives can properly interpret the original meaning of the memoirs.
Would not any self respecting scientist feel compelled to trust these memoirs without question?
Some so-called "scientists" have questioned the validity of these memoirs simply because the baker seemed to think that it was an apple pie instead of a chocolate cake. But as the baker was the original creator of the delicious desert, and the scientists who believe it is a chocolate cake are merely observers, we can be confident that if he thinks it's a pie it must therefore be a pie.
There I fixed it!