Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I wanted to discuss the glaring hypocrisy in mainstream science concerning topics like UFOs and other paranormal subjects.
Let me start with disagreeing with your use of the word "hypocrisy" here. It smacks of some kind of moral judgement and I don't think is
appropriate in the realm of this topic, which is relationship of science and "paranormal".
The Scientific establishment literally scoffs at the idea of serious study into subjects like UFOs, ESP etc.
Let's consider the experimental data, just for the sake of giving a name to all the body of evidence of the sightings and such. First of all,
scientist never tended to ignore the evidence in cases it was available. For example, the explanation of the gun camera images from a Mexican jet
fighter, which contained pictures of a few floating lights, received what I believe a scientific explanation as refracted light coming from an oilrig
a certain distance away.
There are cases when a sighting cannot be explained -- in this case, it's not a scientific tradition to speculate about it. There is indeed a lot of
popular "science" built around that, complete with classification of aliens piloting the various types of flying objects.
They simple say they need "concrete evidence" to validate serious study of the subject by mainstream science. A piece of a UFO, a Alien body,
a clear alien transmission etc..
Excuse me, but I don't find any flaw with the demand to have valid input for the study.
But when you look at mainstream science its full of subjects that are not held too such high requirements in fact lots of subjects have much
less evidence to back them up.
There are scientist all over the world that have been searching in the depths of mines for purely hypothetical particles called "
neutralinos" thought to make up Dark matter.
The key difference here is that Dark Matter does exist, and observations of such, through the study of motions of large systems such as galaxies, are
reproducible by separate scientific groups and in general consistent.
Before neutralino, people had a theory about neutrino. You, perhaps, would have argued that it's all bull, bu lo and behold, despite considerable
difficulty in detecting neutrinos, they have been not only discovered, but studied extensively. Science is not for those looking for quick
gratification of curiosity or simple answers.
Its the same with dark energy we have no concrete evidence for its existence, We cant see it, we cant define it and we surely don't understand
it. But in theory we can only infer its existence because our current models of the universe don't work without it.
Like I said, if you google or wiki it, you'll find how it can be "indirectly" observed. You see, same applies for detecting double stars where one
of the objects is not observable in visible spectrum. Detection of celestial bodies through observation of others, effected by gravitaional pull of
that body, is a very old and valid technique.
I mean, if you continue your simplistic (imho) line of thought, you'll tell me that quarks do not exist. Maybe they don't but sure the quark theory
has a hell of predictive power.
UFOs have mountains of evidence when compared to some of these legitimate scientific fields.
Yeah, right, like the gun cam of the Mexican fighter. That's some mountain. Do you have ANY idea of the amount of data being collected in particle
Compare that to the "Omega minus particle" out of 200,000 experiments only 2 events took place that suggested it was real and that was all it
took for it to become accepted physics.
Look, you really need to read up on physics. Some phenomena are indeed rare, such as solar neutrino, but they are reproducible in different labs with
(often) very consistent results. Omega has been extensively studied sonce it's discovery, and a lot of statistics has been collected. The W boson was
first detected in 3 events. Now it's a routine measurement.
[edit on 14-6-2006 by Aelita]