Trouble is, this has very little to do with a 'normal lens'. That measurement is more likely tied to the appearance of perspective in a print. That is, a print of a certain size viewed at a certain distance taken with a certain angle of view will appear to have the same perspective as our normal vision. Distant objects will not appear larger or smaller than they should relative to near objects. This standard, while likely flawed and subjective, is a 8x10 print at arms length taken with a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera. It seems that 43-58mm is an accepted range, with different people making different compromises.
I think that part is not being addressed. Obviously there is NO WAY to capture in a print what we "see", the way we see it. Closest thing is a hemispherical IMAX theater, but thats still plenty flawed.
The arguments about Field of View are rhetorical, our field of view is not reproducable in print, in any way.