#1 - Posted: 16/08/2008 13:46
"At first, Kuhn's study found, that evidence will be ignored or sabotaged." i'm afraid it's worse than that. almost without exception the careers, work, or sometimes even the lives of the "lone voices in the wilderness", who call attention to the anomalous data which undermine the consistencies of the current scientific world view, are destroyed. in earler years, of course, they were burned at the stake. why? because of fear of the unknown? because of power plays based on money and prestige? because some things the world just isn't ready for yet? do we have a more enlightened approach today?
how many school children are taught about tesla instead of edison?
how many people know what a poor scientist louis pasteur was, that he fudged his research. and yet we remember him as the father of germ theory. there is a huge amount of anomalous data out there that contradicts pasteur. not everyone has stuck his head in the sand however. there are some very effective products out there that are based on pasteur's contemporary competitors' findings. (google sanum remedies.)
for more anomalies and a brilliant review of the skullduggery within archeology, upon which our acceptance of the darwinian model, as it is applied to homo sapiens, is based, see the work of cremo and thompson, "forbidden archeology" or its abridged version, "the hidden history of the human race." don't just go to a website. actually read the book. the research is very thorough.
btw for the ultimate look at anomalies and their juxtaposition to scientific dogma, see the works of charles fort. no, don't go to a fortean society website. actually read his books.
my readings of many of the postings on this site suggest that most of the posters may be most comfortable with only a certain level of anomaly. that's fine, that's a start. as you go along you may be lead by the data deeper and deeper into territory that is no longer popular or politically (scientifically) "correct". studies of human perception show that perception is not a passive receiving of data to our sense organs, but is an active process, a dialogue, which filters and focuses based on our conceptual framework, and our likes and dislikes. we see what we want to see and what we are capable of seeing. my daughter reminded me the other day of the story about when the spanish ships first landed on the coast of south america. the natives literally couldn't see the ships sitting off-shore because they had no word or concept for such things. perhaps if a ufo landed outside my apartment this morning i would think that it was a somewhat strange helicopter and go back to writing this forum entry.