Scientific Realism part 1

I have debated and discussed this topic with many people and the issue always comes up of the burden of proof. For more often than not, many that claim to be materialists, and atheists in virtue of naturalism and materialism (although they never claim to be materialists-just atheists), suggest that if one believes in metaphysics, the afterlife, God and the like proclaim that the burden of proof lies with the metaphysician. This is due to what they say are superfluous claims that are not found in observation. In short, this sort of atheist suggests that their view of reality is an observed view, while the contrary one is based on fantasy and imagination. But is physicalism observed? I mean, does one 'observe' hydrogen? Does one 'observe' photosynthesis? Does one 'observe' gravitational orbits? The answer may surprise you. For the materialist atheist, the answer is yes. But he or she fails to realize that scientific descriptions are NOT observations. Observations are precisely those phenomena in our consciousness. Observations are 'things' we are aware of and nothing more. The moment we start to describe them as to understand them, we assign to them some grand vision of reality that helps us make sense of the whole of it and the things we experience. The sky overhead, the grass and soil below, the stars in motion, the swirling microscopic particles all succumb to our definitions of them which fit into a genera philosophie. In the strictest sense, observation is phenomenology. Terms we use to describe what we experience reduce it's raw nature to a palpable schematic. And so, the 'burden of proof' is no less in the hands of the metaphysician as the physician. When we say a person is a human being and a human being is a mammal and a mammal is a biological organism we are appealing to a taxonomy with a rather complex layered set of beliefs about the world. The metaphysician does not deny that people are mammals. But when the materialist states as such, he or she is not using the same taxonomic set of assumptions the metaphysician is. For the materialist assumes the mind emerges from biology while the metaphysician does not. But to stand on the 'burden of proof' in favor of the former is to suggest that biology is observed while souls are not; when neither are observed. One does not observe biology, one describes what one observes AS biological. And so does the one describe conscious states AS of the soul. So, let the atheist assume he or she has the higher rational ground to stand on. For in reality, we are all stuck in the cave forced to see shadows of things and describe them the best we can.