Wide acceptance of an idea is not proof of its validity.
The supreme triumph of reason is to cast doubt upon its own validity.
Any general statement is like a check drawn on a bank. Its value depends on what is there to meet it.
Awareness is the key. Do we see the stories that we're telling ourselves and question their validity?
The fact that some religious fanatics might support a theory doesn't invalidate it, anymore than the concurrence of UFO abduction cults invalidates the notion of extra-terrestrial life.
If the experiments which I urge be defective, it cannot be difficult to show the defects; but if valid, then by proving the theory, they must render all objections invalid.
The only relevant test of the validity of a hypothesis is comparison of prediction with experience.
If the show encourages an audience to ask the question, "Is this character's emotional response to this situation valid?," then that's a really good question to ask.
But the proclamation, as law, either is valid, or is not valid. If it is not valid, it needs no retraction. If it is valid, it can not be retracted, any more than the dead can be brought to life.
