> Pretty much everything pre-enlightenment is really smart sounding nonsense.
This is like saying that Newtonian physics is really smart sounding nonsense because it makes mispredictions in places and assumes that time behaves like a continuum.
Among Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle alone,
Aristotle developed syllogisms (a fragment of predicate logic), Aristotle developed the notion of scientific disciplines, Socrates made many realize that it's not as easy to refute seemingly obvious nonsense in a watertight manner, Aristotle developed the notion of infinitely divisible time trying to refute Zeno's infinitely divisible distances traveled.
It's important to note that where these people are wrong and have developed insufficiently powerful explanations, it's because they lack the instruments and infrastructure (physical and intellectual) to reliably observe contradictions and deficiencies) to these frameworks that they have developed. To the person living then, it makes little difference, and likely the same to much of our lived experience (consider that religion is still very popular).
Once you note this, you should then begin to realize just how little we know (as a society, in your community, yourself) considering the limits of what we can measure (as a society, in your community, yourself), and how measuring something unexpected can completely upend the framework that you had developed.
This is like saying that Newtonian physics is really smart sounding nonsense because it makes mispredictions in places and assumes that time behaves like a continuum.
Among Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle alone,
Aristotle developed syllogisms (a fragment of predicate logic), Aristotle developed the notion of scientific disciplines, Socrates made many realize that it's not as easy to refute seemingly obvious nonsense in a watertight manner, Aristotle developed the notion of infinitely divisible time trying to refute Zeno's infinitely divisible distances traveled.
It's important to note that where these people are wrong and have developed insufficiently powerful explanations, it's because they lack the instruments and infrastructure (physical and intellectual) to reliably observe contradictions and deficiencies) to these frameworks that they have developed. To the person living then, it makes little difference, and likely the same to much of our lived experience (consider that religion is still very popular).
Once you note this, you should then begin to realize just how little we know (as a society, in your community, yourself) considering the limits of what we can measure (as a society, in your community, yourself), and how measuring something unexpected can completely upend the framework that you had developed.