TITLE: Why are direct proofs often considered better than indirect proofs?
QUESTION [15 upvotes]: As the title indicates, I'm curious why direct proofs are often more preferable than indirect proofs. 
I can see the appeal of a direct proof, for it often provides more insight into why and how the relationship between the premises and conclusions works, but I would like to know what your thoughts are concerning this.
Thanks!
Edit: I understand that this question is quite subjective, but that is my intention. There are people who prefer direct proofs more than proof by contradiction, for example. My curiosity is concerning what makes a direct proof preferable to such individuals. In the past, I've had professors grimace whenever I did an indirect proof and showed me that a direct proof was possible, but I never thought to ask them why a direct proof should be done instead. What's the point?

REPLY [8 votes]: Imagine you are trying to solve a murder in a classic Sherlock Holmes manner.
An indirect proof is analogous to the following: You can deduce that 7 out of the 8 possible suspects have bullet proof alibis and logically the perpetrator can only be the remaining one. There is just no other way. You are right and he is the murderer and the conviction that would follow from that is just. But you know nothing about his motives and you do not know how it happened. You learn nothing about how murderers think or what makes them commit crimes. You gain no knowledge about psychology or sociology.
A direct proof is analogous to the following: Not only can you find the perpetrator but you understand what transpired before the murder, how the murderer executed the crime and what tools he used. You now understand what makes humans commit crimes in certain situations and your expanded understanding can be used in other areas of psychology.