> It’s not totally a wild hypothesis. No, it's not, I agree. Though, plausible and intuitive do not equate to true and supported by evidence. It is the differe

> It’s not totally a wild hypothesis. No, it's not, I agree. Though, plausible and intuitive do not equate to true and supported by evidence. It is the difference of human knowledge pre-1700s vs post, when science came along and basically said, "yeah, you think that, but how do you know that?" Post-hoc rationalization is quite powerful stuff. That something wound up happening, does not make it a generally true thing. Other factors can be at play.