Some more observations about evidence, rejection of evidence and scientific paradigms.
The first talk I attended today was on UFO abduction evidence. The talk was by Dr Donald Donderie (not sure I have name spelled correct). He talked about the scientific attitude toward UFOs. Like several people at the conference, this was a theme. He asked why does science ignore anomalies? And he came up with some interesting answers.
One is the idea of competing theories. Some scientists consider themselves researchers trying to better understand the existing models - trying to solve mysteries, little gaps in the current understanding of conventional picture. Examples are astronomers working on star formation, rocket researchers refining space travel technology, etc. They work on expanding knowledge within the existing framework.
Others are rebels. These are the dark matter and dark energy theorists, high energy physics researchers, quantum physicists exploring teleportation and non-locality, some areas of consciousness studies, etc. Among these are the SETI community. They view themselves as pushing the envelope, developing a new paradigm, etc. According to this talk, they are developing new theories, stepping out of the box - into a bigger box. They are building a new theory.
When either team finds something that doesn't fit their paradigm, they have the same response. They either ignore it, reject it, or otherwise deny it.
In addition, UFO studies have their own internal divisions - nuts and bolts, spirituality, advanced physics, disclosure, etc. How well does new-age, paranormal and psychic phenomena fit into the picture. To some conservative nuts & bolts researchers, this is all noise. Some view hypnosis in abduction research as being unscientific. Some view meditation and summoning in UFOs as the CE5 initiative is doing as being unscientific. And the beat goes on....
As I said after the first talk yesterday, in the SETI/UFOlogy squabble, UFO researchers are not blameless. I move in both circles to some degree (much more in UFO research circles lately), and my comment was that SETI and UFO researchers basically use the same words. Only the pronouns are reversed.
In the end, the issue is how well something fits into your own belief system. Is something you learn compatible with what you already "know" to be true? If not, your disbelief filters will kick in. You will find reasons to reject it. Maybe the person making the claim is not reputable. Maybe their methodology was flawed - the list of excuses is endless but the purpose is the same, to preserve the world view of you subscribe to.
