When chemists had no model of the nuclear process of stars, the notion of a star of a known mass "burning" for billions of years seemed to put evolution in doubt as a plausible account of planetary life.
This may be where the legal system finds itself when looking to social psychology with regards to organizations such as Scientology. The SEA Organization requires an explanation, but we do not have the neuro-linguistic-social science to account for someone staying with that organzation for that length of time under those conditions ... let alone signing a billion-year contract.
But when we have the science, will the USA's IRS revise the status of such organizations ?
Will the APA offer Margaret Sanger a posthumous apology ? After all, look at where they were at on homosexuality when I was a student ...
PS
The stellar models of astrophysics combined with the DNA model of biochemistry have made evolution a fact : this one fact has a significant impact on, of all things, philosophy. And now the role of the intra-gene DNA ... and the roles of many, many bacteria in our health (not disease, health.)
But I still feel uneasy using that harmless saccharine ... pass the phenylalanine, will ya ? I'm trying to restrict my dextrose use ... and a little BHT for my rice crisps, if you have it ...
1 comment:
Ditto for getting an estimate on the probable number of planets in an ordinary large spiral galaxy. A philosopher cannot ignore these facts when talking about language, logic, awareness and belief. This is not your ancestor's unique One-World anymore, Joe-Bob.
Post a Comment