Some people are quite hung up on facts and proof, disbelieving whatever their senses show them simply because they cannot believe in the vast chasm between their world view and the situation they are observing. Others let their senses lead the way, and attempt to align their understanding of it by logical thought and careful consolidation.
So by definition there are two realities at least: the one of all the things that can be proven by sciences, and the larger collection that also includes all things that science has not yet proven. The difference between the former and the latter is constantly discussed, far more than the stuff science has already "proven". But is that science really a constant? Should we not seek better understanding for things like the discrepancies and incongruities that still exist there as well?
