The vested interests of Official Science in its pet theories had compromised its objective approach to the problems around these theories, these are clear cases of conflict of interest.

The multiple documented cases showing the shunning of active scientists that had proposed ideas or found data contradicting these Official favorite theories are a confirmation of this deep and very serious systemic problem.

The incapacity of Official Science to handle the reality of Anomalies is just more of the same and a reaffirmation of its departure from objectivity.
Add a comment...

If "top" scientists had been denying and ignoring clear evidence on the reality of autonomous anomalous flying objects, Anomalies, for more than 60 years it is really not surprising for us to know that they had been suppressing and denying evidence that appears to contradict one of its pets theories as the Big Bang Theory is, the shunning of people exposing this evidence only reaffirm their lack of objectivity and transparency. This is another case of the systematic problems in Official Science that also manifest in their incapacity to handle the reality of Anomalies.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
The Big Bang Fallacy.

Another example of vested interests in Official Science is the Big Bang theory, the amount of resources and careers that depend on this "venerable" mainstream dogma is huge.

So any idea or observational data that may question the validity of this very popular idea had been and continue to be suppressed by Official Science in multiple forms including denying telescope time to people that had documented objects in the sky that appears to falsify the Big Bang theory.

In particular the case of "intrinsic redshift" values observed in thousands of quasars and active galaxy "families" is really very interesting.

The Big Bang idea is rooted in the apparent correlation between the observed spectral redshift of distant astronomical objects and their distances from us. Simply the more distant than an object is from us the higher that it will be its redshift and that is an indication of how fast they are receding from us.

But observations from several astronomers in particular Halton C. Arp had shown the physical "connection", an indication of closeness, of objects with very different redshift values that by the almost universal accepted dogma will imply that these objects should be very far away from each other, as is the case with families of active galaxies and multiple quasars objects physically linked.

Quasars had been known to have the highest redshift values in any astronomical object so they were assumed to be the farthest observed objects in the known universe, these observations showing the closeness of active galaxies and quasars is a blow to that assumption and hence is a blow to the Big Bang theory.

But the people making these great discoveries are "dissidents" and had been treated with all kinds of obscure approaches: banned from publishing in "prestigious" scientific journals, no access to telescope observation times, etc.

There is literally a scientific "mafia" that controls who is given access to Official Science outlets, if you do not follow the "official line" then you will suffer the consequences and Halton C. Arp is a perfect example of that.
Add a comment...

The intrinsic limitations of a dogmatic mindset.

Dogmatic mindsets in Science are intrinsically limited for a very simple reason: people exposing a dogmatic approach in Science usually gives priority to accepted dogmas over Reality and by Reality we mean consistent observational data coming from multiple independent observers.

Dogmatic approaches are unable to go beyond their self imposed rigid restrictions, they are unable to make "connections" beyond the obvious ones given to them by the established dogmatic framework that they accept.

Since these people are unable to make connections beyond the existing boundaries they are unable to make new discoveries or even accept new ones since that will alter the rigid framework that they cherish.

For example even in a very "rigid" and formal setting as Mathematics that is the intrinsic incarnation of the Platonic Universe dogmatic approaches had failed miserably.

The dogmatic approach in Mathematics was unable to discover non Euclidean Geometries for thousands of years only very fresh approaches to the "parallel problem" in Euclidean Geometry were able to discern the "independent" character of some axioms respect to others and this indirectly opened the door to all new developments in formalization in the 20th century that lead to computers.

But what many of these dogmatic individuals really do not know or had not internalized is this development in formalization lead to the Godel's Incompleteness Theorems around the 1930's.

These incompleteness theorems are actually a mortal blow to dogmatism because essentially they imply that any sufficiently complex mathematical model is intrinsically "incomplete": there are going to be always some claims that can be made inside that model that will be "undecidable"; meaning that the truth value of these claims can not be derived from the given model. In any such model "anomalies" or "emergent" properties always will be found.

And this result is a nightmare for Dogmatism and anybody that had dreamed about an "Elegant Universe" and the History of Science is just an indirect confirmation of that philosophical conclusion: Reality is intrinsically complex and our search for knowledge and understanding is a never ending process, Dogmatism is intrinsically flawed.

Add a comment...

Science Types Dogmatism.

Going to any kind of Science related forum or group online trying to explain the reality of Anomalies is really a great experience, sometimes comparable to the knowledge that we had gained about Anomalies.

These people reactions are essentially not different from the reactions coming from UFO/ET believers and that should be expected as both groups had been "educated" in the same schools, college and universities.

But what stand apart on Science types is their "militant" dogmatism that many times become ridiculous. These people frequently act like programmed automatons.

A typical interchange with them may look like this:

- Observer of Anomalies(OA): The reality of anomalies is an observational claim that only can be verified by independent observations.
- Science Type(ST): Is there any test done to verify this claim?

- OA: No tests so far only observational data.
- ST: Is there any published paper about this that I can read?

- OA: No, this is relative new and we are trying to spread this knowledge.
- ST: Are you familiar with the scientific method? This is not a place for pseudoscience.

- OA: This is not pseudoscience but a basic claim that can be independently verified by anyone, even you.
- ST: Is there any test done to verify any of this? Your claims are based in being ignorant of the scientific method, this is a graphics showing the process that you must follow in the scientific method....

At that point you know that there is nothing that you can say that will change their programmed dogmatic approach, they simply are doomed using that approach and the reality of Anomalies is the perfect and ongoing fact showing the intrinsic failure of their methods.
Add a comment...

To be a "leader" in Science you need to make discoveries before others and uncover objective "connections" that others are unable to perceive because they are bounded by preconceptions and narrow views, it is very well known that preconceptions are blinders for perception.

The reality of Anomalies is really an "open" field waiting for really curious and open minds to make great discoveries, Official Science had defaulted in this area that potentially have far reaching implications.

So this is a great opportunity for anybody that may want to challenge Official Science" leadership in "Science". The Discovery Institute is one organization that comes to mind.
Add a comment...

Scientific Xenophobia.

If people like Lavoisier, Lord Kelvin and Albert Einstein were dead wrong sometimes in their assessment of new phenomena or facts then it is not surprising that today "experts" are still at a loss when facing the reality of anomalies.

The history of Science clearly shows many times that the same young scientists that made extraordinary discoveries later became the rigid-minded experts that rejected or saw with disdain many new ideas that were foreign to them: scientific xenophobia is a pervasive syndrome in modern scientific thinking.
Add a comment...

"New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
METI a perfect example of complacency.

One of the METI goals:

"Foster multidisciplinary research on the design and transmission of interstellar messages, building a global community of scholars from the natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts."

There is a generalised and obviously unsupported idea of "benign" extraterrestrial life, there is a basic lack of any facts supporting that almost religious belief and if life on earth is any indication of how life behave in general then that is a very idealistic belief.

METI is a perfect example of the complacency pervading the modern academic world: if they are unable to even acknowledge the reality of anomalies on earth how they pretend to deal with anomalous manifestations elsewhere?
Add a comment...

Not a good idea to send strong signals into space broadcasting your location.

If plasma based lifeforms are a reality and many observational data and published scientific studies fully support that idea then "empty" space will be a natural habitat for plasma based lifeforms, possibly close to star systems, then that space will be teaming with multiple and different plasma based lifeforms, an astronomical ecosystem. Then any advanced civilization will very likely never will send electromagnetic signals from any location as this "beacon" will attract all kind of plasma based lifeforms that could be hostile and affect their home planet ecology.
That could be a reason for the failure of SETI in detecting any signals so far and a very good reason for not sending out strong electromagnetic signals from any location in our solar system.
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded