fresco wrote:You sing the praises of "common sense", but perhaps you might consider where "science" would be if it were not for the counter-intuitive re-definition of terms like "gravity" etc (by Einstein and others).
I am not sure I would go as far as saying that recent increases in the accuracy of scientific theories are counter-intuitive so much as they appear to presently be out of many people's comfort-zones.
I speculate that man will adapt (with technological aid) such that many people's comfort-zones will expand, and with it will come a wider scope and higher resolution of the "truth".
There is more truthiness in the byproducts of the electrolysis of water being oxygen and hydrogen than there is in the alchemist's goal of the transmutation of common metals into gold.
Not that this transmutation is impossible with today's nuclear technologies, but practical it is not; nor it is likely to be given the energy / expense requirements versus the meager output.
So "truth" may need to encompass the practical as well as the possible.
