Hypocrisy in the Scientific Establishment

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I wanted to discuss the glaring hypocrisy in mainstream science concerning topics like UFOs and other paranormal subjects. The Scientific establishment literally scoffs at the idea of serious study into subjects like UFOs, ESP etc.. and when asked why they act in such a manner concerning what would (in the case of UFOs) perhaps be the biggest revelation in the history of mankind we tend to get the same answer more often then not.

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.. 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. They have been looking for almost two decades and found nothing. Yet mainstream scientists continue to look despite any "concrete evidence".

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.

Consider string theory which is another respectable field of scientific research. Strings would be so small (if a atom was the size of our solar system a string would be the size of a tree) we would never be able to detect them and thus can never prove or disprove their existence. For that matter String and M theory deal with other dimensions we cannot detect, test or prove in any concrete way.

UFOs have mountains of evidence when compared to some of these legitimate scientific fields. Other topics like ESP and psychic transfer experiments have gone through numerous successful trials that indicate something is happening well beyond what the odds of chance should allow. Yet it is not accepted into science no matter how many successful trials take place .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.

What is with this Hypocrisy? Why do some subjects require overwhelming concrete evidence to be taken seriously by the scientific community and other only require a mere unproved theory? They make and study extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence they require for topics like UFOs.


[edit on 14-6-2006 by ShadowXIX]




posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   

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.


I disagree.


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 physics?


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]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Oh there seriously is hypocrisy! This is because many scientists hold their "Theoretical Science" beliefs in almost the same vigour and stubborness as religious conservatives! That's why it's Theoretical Science - it's grounded in theory, and it's using the theory of what SHOULD happen to design an observatory/telescope/detector that can actually DETECT it happening.

Now, some theories have a lot more theoretical evidence supporting them - like Math. Math is an awesome tool for theoretical science. Without it, though, theoretical sciences is also scoffed at. Look at Dark Matter. If someone suggested its existance 50 years ago, on the whole they would have been scoffed at (which they were). This was because we didn't yet know that what we could see in the sky only accounted for the TINIEST fraction of what was really out there!

Once the OBSERVATION of that occured, then the theory gained a lot more ground.


Now, things such as ESP still don't have such factual evidence. Nothing that can be proven to work every time the experiment is performed (or the performance is too wildly variable to base any concrete conclusion on). As such, the Scientific Community tends to dismiss the pseudo-science that tends to be investigated, and tries to perform what currently seems like very laughable tests. Eventually, however, those primary, abliet simplistic, tests will pave the way for more advanced studies.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I wanted to discuss the glaring hypocrisy in mainstream science concerning topics like UFOs and other paranormal subjects.


Originally posted by Aelita
Let me start with disagreeing with your use of the word "hypocrisy" hear. It smack 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".


Okay...perhaps the words "close-minded," "dogmatic," "incompetent," and "logic-challenged" would be more descriptive in this instance.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yarium
Oh there seriously is hypocrisy! This is because many scientists hold their "Theoretical Science" beliefs


Hey wait a second, what about us experimentalists?


Besides, I'm sure that you never spent much time talking to real theorists either. They are often buzy concocting theories that really push the envelope.

Come on, the theorists "invented" the quantum mechanics. They weren't stuck with the notion that classical mecahincs "was it". Your statement find little support in facts.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yarium
Oh there seriously is hypocrisy! This is because many scientists hold their "Theoretical Science" beliefs in almost the same vigour and stubborness as religious conservatives!

Right...Scientific Dogmatism.


Originally posted by Yarium
Now, things such as ESP still don't have such factual evidence.

As far as something which can be duplicated repeatedly and numerously with physical instruments...no.

As far as something which has been tested to occur many times...yes.

There have been many observations to provide evidence of psychic phenonmenon and to make it a theory based on those observations.

One of the more notable and well-known tests on this are found here:

Military officers, astronauts, physicists, psychologists and psychiatrists all confirm Uri Geller's telekientic ability.


Originally posted by Yarium
Nothing that can be proven to work every time the experiment is performed (or the performance is too wildly variable to base any concrete conclusion on).

Something does not have to work every time in order to come up with a theory. See what was stated above.


Originally posted by Yarium
As such, the Scientific Community tends to dismiss the pseudo-science that tends to be investigated, and tries to perform what currently seems like very laughable tests. Eventually, however, those primary, abliet simplistic, tests will pave the way for more advanced studies.

One of the prejudices among many scientists that constitutes an obstacle for serious study on ESP and related, is that they insist on coming up with a material origin for its manifestation. They absolutely refuse to consider anything of a metaphysical nature that causes it. Going about research in this manner will always lead to failure to come up with plausible explanations, which is why the scientific community at large flounders in the area of psychic research and development. Psychic phenomenon does not have a physical cause. They must first overcome their basic prejudice in this regard before they can move forward


Their answer to something that they cannot explain scientifically is simply to label it pseudo-science. There is nothing wrong with ESP and psychic phenomenon. It has been happening since time immemorial - long before any of them were born. The problem is within the dogmatists of traditional science. They are the ones who must conform and adapt in order to learn the truth



[edit on 14-6-2006 by Paul_Richard]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
The Scientific establishment literally scoffs at the idea of serious study into subjects like UFOs, ESP etc

Except that many scientists have studied these phenomena and the claims related to them. Scientists don't investigate the majority of the claims, and thats probably because the majority of the claims are hokum, or un-investigatable. But there are plenty of scientists that will look into these things.


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 researchers have evidence that they exist, and they can by studied in a rational manner. They can have tests to establish if a neutrino has passed by, etc. With UFOs and Ghosts, there's not much that can be done in the way of reproducible scientific testing.





Consider string theory which is another respectable field of scientific research. Strings would be so small (if a atom was the size of our solar system a string would be the size of a tree) we would never be able to detect them and thus can never prove or disprove their existence.

String theory, from what I understand, is largely a theory that arises from mathematical proofs, so in that sense they too can be studied and tested.

UFOs have mountains of evidence when compared to some of these legitimate scientific fields.

And the majority of that evidence is worthless. Its anecdotes. Grainy photographs. Weird cuts. The phenomenon can't be properly studied scientifically, thats why people don't put much time into it.



Other topics like ESP and psychic transfer experiments have gone through numerous successful trials that indicate something is happening well beyond what the odds of chance should allow.

Not to a degree that would make it worthwhile for someone to investigate.


Yet it is not accepted into science no matter how many successful trials take place .

This is wrong. If there was a good demonstration of these phenomena under controlable and repeatable circumstances, there'd be more people studying it.


They make and study extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence they require for topics like UFOs.

The claims are based upon the evidence.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
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".


I didnt use the word to describe some type of moral judgement, I used it to in a way which should be more specifically termed a double standard, bias, or inconsistency in which the term hypocrisy is also commonly used .



Originally posted by Aelita
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.


There is no concrete proof Darkmatter exist. It has not been detected, tested or proven in any such way. So saying it does exist is right now is speculation. Infact some scientist are starting to jump on the band wagon of Variable gravity which would do away with dark matter all together. But since that means tampering with Newton its not as widely accepted as this magical dark matter.

As for neutralinos 16 years countless man hours and millions of dollars have yielded not a single shred of proof that they exist. Atleast with UFOs we have loads of eye witness acounts, video, radar returns among other things so I still stand by my statement that is a mountian of evidence compared to neutralinos and the like.




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.


Dark energy and Dark matter is not like indirectly observing a black hole or double star. In those case the matter cleary exist we dont need any unproven extoic matter to explain these actions. With dark matter we are only observing the effect of extra gravity on galaxies we can not yet account for. So somebody dreamed up a magical form of matter without atoms that still produces gravity one in which we have zero concrete evidence for. All we have is theories just like with string theory and other dimensions. Its not far off from attributing lighting to Zeus IMO. We know lighting is there but we dont understand how it works lets fill it in with gap with a untestable entity.

We dont even know what gravity exactly is yet. So it might be alittle premature to think we understand how it works completely. Variable gravity has enough evidence backing it up to explain this extra gravity as dark matter.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan



They make and study extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence they require for topics like UFOs.

The claims are based upon the evidence.


Ah but Im talking concrete evidence which they demand for subjects like UFOs and these scientific subjects severly lack. These are almost entirely dependant on Theories. They dont call it String Fact
and they still refer to neutralinos as "hypothetical" particles. They simply have to because they dont have the proof and may very well never get it.

With UFOs and ESP we have evidence (not concrete) and loads of theories but thats not enough.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Dark energy and Dark matter is not like indirectly observing a black hole or double star. In those case the matter cleary exist we dont need any unproven extoic matter to explain these actions.


I am sorry but you seem to have abandoned your own logic here. "In those cases the matter clearly exists" -- is that a joke? Existance of some distant planets orbiting stars has been inferred from irregularities in the stars' movement. There is often no observation of the actual planet itself.

According to you, a real progressive scientist (not a hypocrit, of course) could claim that under certain conditions the laws of gravity change which causes the stars to wobble! And you would salute such a daring mind. This is what you are doing in the subject of Dark Matter.


With dark matter we are only observing the effect of extra gravity on galaxies we can not yet account for.


Read the above, and remember the Occam's razor.

When you see that there is an unexpected charge on your credit card bill, you probably say that you might have been posessed by the alien overlord Zudu who arrived to your neighborhood on a shiny UFO and snatched your body for a few hours. Zudu then used your credit card to buy 10 Rolex watches and a box of cell phones, all of which were shipped to Nigeria. How hypocritical it is of scientists to even suggest that this in all likelihood was a case of identity theft!



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita

According to you, a real progressive scientist (not a hypocrit, of course) could claim that under certain conditions the laws of gravity change which causes the stars to wobble! And you would salute such a daring mind. This is what you are doing in the subject of Dark Matter.


Variable gravity is not my theory its the brainchild of Israeli astrophysicist Professor Milgrom and others like Professor Mike Disney from Cardiff University. I was merely using it as a example anyway

Right now theres enough evidence to back the claims of variable for producing this extra gravity as Darkmatter. In fact theres as much evidence to back dark matter as there is Zeus is producing the extra gravity.

Im shocked you dont see the difference between a explanation of indirectly observed objects like blackholes and planets which are proven objects and exotic matter we have no proof for. In one case you used a real object to explain the effect and in the other case you made up a unproven object to explain the effect.

Not very different from when people used GODs and spirits to fill in the gaps for their ignorance. As for Occam's razor I dont think Dark Matter is even close to the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation would likely be perhaps Newton didnt get it exactly right concerning gravity. But that's darn near heresy in main stream scientific circles.




[edit on 14-6-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Nygdan



They make and study extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence they require for topics like UFOs.

The claims are based upon the evidence.


Ah but Im talking concrete evidence which they demand for subjects like UFOs

People don't investigate UFO claims for two reasons.

There's no evidence to support their existense, there are anecdotes and dodgy photos.

There's no way to study them, as they're practically paranormal.

This is different from neutrinos or dark matter or string theory, which, while they have only a smattering of physical evidence to support their existence, are in agreement with scientific models of how the world operates.



With UFOs and ESP we have evidence (not concrete) and loads of theories but thats not enough.

Correct. The theories are poor, the evidence is bunk, and the phenomenon can't be investigated in a lab or in the field.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

People don't investigate UFO claims for two reasons.

There's no evidence to support their existense, there are anecdotes and dodgy photos.


I know you know more about UFOs to make a comment like that. We have credible eye witness, video and radar information to name some of the info.

The Belgium Triangle incident is a single case that has all that evidence I mentioned including radar evidence from both the ground and two F-16 to back it up.

Originally posted by Nygdan
This is different from neutrinos or dark matter or string theory, which, while they have only a smattering of physical evidence to support their existence, are in agreement with scientific models of how the world operates.


I have been talking about neutralinos not neutrinos. There is a huge difference

A "smattering of physical evidence to support their existence"??? more like none at all. Look for any physical evidence for neutralinos or strings
You wont find it I assure you, If you can produce some your going to win a nobel prize. Strings by their very nature are far too small for us every to observe and prove they really are tiny little strings. The are outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove.

Neutralinos scientist have spent well over a decade looking for any physical evidence and turned up nil, not a single shred of physical evidence . If they ever do find even a "smattering of physical evidence " they are going to win a nobel prize so you will know if it ever happens.

In these cases we are dealing entirely with theories and models. Not even a single dodgy photo.

Even "respectable" scientific subjects like multiverse theories have to be considered unfalsifiable, they are currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove just like String theory. You have just as good a chance as proving or disproving GOD.

[edit on 14-6-2006 by ShadowXIX]





top topics
 
0

log in

join