NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

Reply to thread

Message

Interesting point, NTS.

I recently re-read Jacques Vallee's 1965 book Anatomy of a Phenomenon: Unidentified Objects in Space-A Scientific Appraisal after several decades. Vallee tackles the overly emotional and unscientific reaction from many scientists when confronted with UFO evidence. The process of normal interpretation employed by science is, Vallee observes, "to distort a set of unknown phenomena until it is recognisable by ordinary standards:" i.e. UFOs cannot be of intelligent non-human origin because this hypothesis doesn't fit in the current box of what is possible and what not possible, so the way to deal with the evidence psychologically is to either ignore it completely, or else distort it until it fits and can be explained away using current dogmas. This he identifies as the core issue: evidence of the extraordinary is plentiful and compelling, but dogma and emotionalism, rather than science, buries the issue because of its challenge to current paradigms.

He terms this mind-set "The syndrome of resistance to the future." It reminds me of one of the chapters in Allen Hynek's excellent book "The UFO Experience: a Scientific Enquiry." The chapter is titled "Science is not always what scientists do" - similar observations to those made by Vallee. Emotionalism & belief systems usually trump true scientific method.

<blockquote data-quote="ArchieBedford" data-source="post: 92127" data-attributes="member: 2281">Interesting point, NTS.I recently re-read Jacques Vallee&#039;s 1965 book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000IVLZ3M/?tag=rockoids-20" target="_blank">Anatomy&nbsp; of a Phenomenon: Unidentified Objects in Space-A Scientific Appraisal</a> after several decades.&nbsp; Vallee tackles the overly emotional and unscientific reaction from many scientists when confronted with UFO evidence. The process of normal&nbsp; interpretation employed by science is, Vallee observes,&nbsp; &quot;to distort a set of unknown phenomena until it is recognisable by&nbsp; ordinary standards:&quot; i.e. UFOs cannot be of intelligent non-human origin&nbsp; because this hypothesis doesn&#039;t fit in the current box of what is&nbsp; possible and what not possible, so the way to deal with the evidence&nbsp; psychologically is to either ignore it completely, or else distort it&nbsp; until it fits and can be explained away using current dogmas. This he&nbsp; identifies as the core issue: evidence of the extraordinary is plentiful&nbsp; and compelling, but dogma and emotionalism, rather than science, buries&nbsp; the issue because of its challenge to current paradigms. &nbsp;He terms this mind-set &quot;The syndrome of resistance to the future.&quot; It reminds me of one of the chapters in Allen Hynek&#039;s excellent book &quot;The UFO Experience: a Scientific Enquiry.&quot; The chapter is titled &quot;Science is not always what scientists do&quot; - similar observations to those made by Vallee. Emotionalism &amp; belief systems usually trump true scientific method.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ArchieBedford, post: 92127, member: 2281"] Interesting point, NTS. I recently re-read Jacques Vallee's 1965 book [URL="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000IVLZ3M/?tag=rockoids-20"]Anatomy of a Phenomenon: Unidentified Objects in Space-A Scientific Appraisal[/URL] after several decades. Vallee tackles the overly emotional and unscientific reaction from many scientists when confronted with UFO evidence. The process of normal interpretation employed by science is, Vallee observes, "to distort a set of unknown phenomena until it is recognisable by ordinary standards:" i.e. UFOs cannot be of intelligent non-human origin because this hypothesis doesn't fit in the current box of what is possible and what not possible, so the way to deal with the evidence psychologically is to either ignore it completely, or else distort it until it fits and can be explained away using current dogmas. This he identifies as the core issue: evidence of the extraordinary is plentiful and compelling, but dogma and emotionalism, rather than science, buries the issue because of its challenge to current paradigms. He terms this mind-set "The syndrome of resistance to the future." It reminds me of one of the chapters in Allen Hynek's excellent book "The UFO Experience: a Scientific Enquiry." The chapter is titled "Science is not always what scientists do" - similar observations to those made by Vallee. Emotionalism & belief systems usually trump true scientific method. [/QUOTE]

Verification