chapter 3

On page 129 the authors say "Thus natural wonders often overlapped with 'secrets' and 'experiments,' another group of phenomena accessible only to experience."  Today, with a much broader knowledge of the world, are we more likely to attribute those things which we can see but can't explain as wonders?  Or do we wait until we have an explanation of how the things work before we call them wonders?  How much experience do we really need to have with something wonderful (if any experience at all) to qualify it as wonderful?  Or do we need any first-hand experience with something?  It's interesting to think about the things that we know are true, but have no explanation for.  We've discussed in class how sometimes more knowledge of something makes it even more wonderful.  But is this necessarily always true?