> Also used to back up his claims [that the idea of galaxies was wrong] was the observation of a nova in the Andromeda "nebula" that had briefly outshone the entire nebula, constituting a seemingly impossible output of energy were Andromeda in fact a separate galaxy.
But of course, the nova was real, the "seemingly impossible" energy output was also real. The Great Debate[1] happened, and eventually those unacceptably ridiculous distances became common knowledge.
The universe occasionally catches us off guard. I think most of us want to know why, if we're just, as you imply, a collection of chemical reactions, why are we "here", in the sense of having what we call a consciousness? It may very well be that there will come an explanation some day, rooted in quantum physics or some unnamed, yet-dreamed-up branch of science, but it hasn't yet, and that forthcoming explanation could very well discover that there is a fundamental difference between man and machine, just as it could very well discover there isn't. We won't know until someone does the work of coming up with testable hypotheses, and probably a better definition of "consciousness".
Neuroscience
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-scientif...
https://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Brain-Deciphering-Codes...