But it should be first demonstrated fully that such an hypothesis IS completely without warrant. Such is not the case with UFO and psi phenomena.
A great example is that of Global Warming. This has become unfortunately very political, and I do not want to go in that direction; but the models to the theory have been less than accurate. This warrants respect for those who, with good evidence and faith, question the theory - which itself still merits serious consideration. However, those who disagree with the theory are called "deniers" and are scorned by the current mainstream of Western scientists and leaders. It is obvious what is going on: the power elite are feeling vulnerable and as such have stepped up the marginalization of the "deniers." A similar movement was seen in the late Medieval period when the Church, feeling increasingly vulnerable, instigated the Inquisition. While its claim was to champion Truth, in hindsight it was obviously about maintaining power. The same is happening in scientific circles, although we have banished the rack for the pillory of public mockery.
Much more on Power and Simone Weil later - I must admit that this writer has found himself to be a "Weilian" in spirit - but now, on to the Lottery. A recent post on the MSNBC page has an interview with the bearded winner of a share of the mega-lottery in Jersey. His take-home after everything was 4 million, "not worth shit these days" according to the man (I'd take it), but his claim is that the winnings are a burden and he wishes it had never happened. He had liked his life and cannot have it back. His wife bluntly calls it a curse. Besides having to contend with the moochers and crooks, one can read between the lines - he is seen as a different man now. He liked the man he was. Lottery winners, beware!
There is the old proverb "be careful what you wish for - you just might get it." Does this only apply to self-aggrandizement? It would seem so - one doesn't hear complaints about a miracle recovery of a child, but only about getting fame and/or fortune. We see the crack-up of stars and the rich all the time - but we also read about the lost lives in the poverty neighborhoods as well. Which is worse? I personally would rather come to terms with wealth than poverty, but is this wrong? Or is it all about balance and moderation, the "Confucion" (as in Confucius) way? I believe that is the answer, but there remain two question for me: one - why is it that happiness depends on moderation? And - what of the exceptional people? What of the saint who lives his life in poverty? What of the genius who becomes a cultural center through his brilliance alone, without desire for fame and fotune? More on both it another time. FK