Have you considered the distance between two galaxies? How about the empty space between electrons zipping around the nucleus? When a scientist says “I don’t know” to a question can you measure the depth of knowledge required make that proclamation? Can you articulate the magnitude of synaptic firings that begin as you attempt to recall a name that is on the ‘tip-of-your-brain’ so-to-speak – the wraith-like ‘knowledge’ that forms in your brain that can strongly say ‘No’ to the many suggestions that you or somebody else puts forth to you until the actual name comes along, and then you say ‘Yes!!’?
I’d like to invent a word that denotes the attribute of being measurable by average humans. Time and distance mostly but it could even include other mathematical, trigonometric, statistical, physiological, and psychological measures that are within intuitive calculation capabilities of uneducated or untrained humans. I guess the extent of comprehension in the natural world stops way before the actual wing-beats of a hovering humming bird or the distance between the closest untouching pinch between your fingers or, going back to my original question, the distance between two galaxies (which by the way is in itself a wrong question to ask because though the average distance might be closer to a million light years, galaxies gather in clusters and super clusters and the distances between vary widely!)
So, I suggest the word ‘Sapiend’. As in: The sapiend of time required to get to the next town. Or, the sapiend distance between where the cheetah was when it began chasing the gazelle to where it catches the poor thing or the sapiend ache you feel when the cheetah’s poor cubs die of hunger if it doesn’t catch the gazelle. Neuroscientists could argue sapiend differences between a mind hallucinating from a combination of naturally occurring chemicals in the brain as opposed to artificially ingested ones.
Young-earth creationists are caught in the trap of this ‘nonsapiendence’ because they cannot visualize the slow ratcheting of lifeforms up ‘Mount Improbable’ (as Dawkins calls it) into the plethora of species that are extant now. They then hunt for (and easily find) so-called proofs that fit their worldview and go about brandishing arguments like missing links and macro vs micro evolution etc. It is sad to see racial and cultural bigotry in this day and age but it is sadder still to witness scientific bigotry to preserve a worldview – sad, because there is an inherent acceptance within science of reason, evidence and empiricism as a measure of reality. The beauty of the scientific enterprise is that ideas sourced from and contained in non-science and pseudoscience are dropped like hot potatoes, doesn’t go anywhere. But these are the so-called science citations that prop up ignorant, bigoted, and backward worldviews.
Since worldviews are built off sapeind attributes, sapiending science is as important as removing superstition from the masses and developing a generation of rational students who can create a world based on scientific policies and mutually beneficial social attributes that bring us together rather than bigoted divisiveness.
My 2 cents 