In a base sense, I agree with you. But this way of looking at it will lead to a misinterpretation that it's just our inability to measure it that is behind the weirdness. I tend to think of it like this: nature, at it's core, is fundamentally weird. Our frame of understanding is based on definite postulates that "things" have a certain "position", they can be only be in one "place" at one "time" and our body of scientific logic and reasoning is built on it. At core of QM, there is the Broglie concept of matter waves. What we used to consider as elementary particles are fundamentally a wave which exhibits particle-like behavior in certain scenarios. If you accept that everything (the double slit, the beam, the screen, a bunch of grey cells postulating about it) is a combination of fields of probabilities of what we call as "elementary particles", it will become easier to digest. "observation" is nothing but an act of interaction of some of these fields that takes away the "coherent" nature of an observed weirdness ("collapse").