Not at all: it is my fault entirely; the point is much bigger than the couple of lines I devoted to it.
What I was trying to say, poorly, is that most of the things science deals with cannot be experienced with our senses. Nobody has seen an atom or a molecule; nobody has been in space and most cannot even comprehend the distance between the Moon and the Earth, let alone the mind-bogling distance between galaxies.
To be sure, this is not entirely new. Consider the law of intertia, known before Newton but now considered The First Newton's Law. It says that an object will remain in its current state if it is not a subject to forces acting on it. Well, if you rely on common sense, where have you seen that? Where have you seen an object in complete isolation from the rest of the universe? Nowhere. And for that reason, nobody on Earth has observed behavior predicted by the Law of Inertia.
Had the scientist relied on common sense and having never seen the law in action, he would REJECT that law. We learn to UNDERSTAND it rather than rely on senses (in this case, as a limit of the magnitude of forces tending to zero).
To give another example, how does the author utilize his senses in the area of quantum mecnanics? How can you "justify" an electron being everywhere at once and then turning up in a particular point with some probability. That simply does not happen around you, to the objects that you can see.
In other words, it is patently wrong to even apply the criteria used by the author to what Weinberg said. The author did not even understand a word of the quoted thought. Yet, it did not preclude him from characterizing it as infamous.