I agree. The classicly naive description of decay is that is something that "just happens", under an assumption that it is a memoryless process (time-to-next event is Exponentially distributed and all that) driven completely by quantum randomness. If neutrinos (which are notoriously hard to detect) are actually able to nudge nuclei to come apart (decay), then it should not be surprising that decay rates would be tied to events on the Sun (a local neutrino source of some consequence).
[soapbox]The term "dogma" is used in science all the time, the difference is that while you cannot disprove religious dogma, you can disprove scientific dogma. All that slows it down is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Most scientists will want more statistical significance if their results seem to go against the scientific dogma, that's a well known problem in science publications. But timidity like that (from fear that your experiment is simply unlucky or wrong) is much less of a problem than if you are timid about publishing because some dogmatic git will torture you and possibly burn you at the stake no matter how good (statistically) your result is. [/soapbox]
This PC to PC stuff is typical of the mindset of the collective. See (NPR) story where they quote the evangelical prohibitionist Billy Sunday proclamation (on the day prohibition became the law of the land)
"The slums will soon be only a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile, and the children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent."
Beware of wackos bearing bayonets! Keep your powder dry.
Slashdot Mirror
Without Loss Of Generality ... assume life appeared spontaneously on Earth. The theorem is proven the same way regardless of this generalization.
Beware of wackos bearing bayonets! Keep your powder dry.