Of course your eye is a sensor. As are all your senses. The difference is that the input it receives is unmediated by external sensors and software. Visualising atoms or DNA is fine, but it is an inferior source of information. By a long way.
Imagine you were born deaf and couldn't hear music. But that someone showed you a music visualiser.
Do you think if you were watching the output of that visualiser you would now know the music in some meaningful way?
Would it be possible for you to try at least to contribute to the discussion? This out of hand dismissal seems to be a bit of an issue for you, maybe try harder?
How is it inferior? We can't see in for e.g. the IR spectrum. But we can turn an IR image into a false-colour image that our eye and brain can make great use of. Using your eyes to directly see in IR will inherently be inferior to processing the results from a sensor into a form that we can see.
You seem really hung up on some pedantry about "see" and "seeing". Why? This may seem like some kind of strong criticism to you, but it just seems as though you are unaware of these technologies and haven't really thought through what constitutes a measurement or observation.
Imagine you were born deaf and couldn't hear music. But that someone showed you a music visualiser.
Do you think if you were watching the output of that visualiser you would now know the music in some meaningful way?