Vox admits that some science is taboo

A few days ago, Vox published an interview that brings up an issue with the modern scientific community. It’s an issue I’ve brought up many times before.

It turns out that modern science, or at least those who control the purse strings that fund various studies, has not yet overcome its fear of the unknown. Certain topics are still considered “off-limits.”

I’m referring, of course, to the study of UFOs. The interview is with Alexander Wendt, who is (according to Vox) “one of the most influential political scientists alive.”

There are things going on in the sky that are strange and do not have an obvious explanation. These are UFOs, and like any other unidentified phenomenon, human beings are curious creatures and normally scientists will rush out to study whatever we find fascinating or puzzling. But in this case, scientists won’t touch it with a 10-foot pole. And that’s the taboo.

So even though the Navy is now saying, “Hey, we’ve got UFOs on film, here they are,” the scientists are still not going to study them. So there seems to be something blocking the scientific community from engaging this phenomenon, even though anything else even remotely this interesting would generate limitless research dollars…

I’ve received a lot of emails from individual scientists in response to my TEDx talk. And all of them said the same thing, which is, “Thank you, we wish we could study this, but we can’t because our lives depend on getting grants from the government and other research institutes, and if anybody gets worried that we’re interested in UFOs, boom, they won’t get a cent and their careers will be in the tank.”

I suspect that humans need some things to be taboo, along with various other cultural mores, in order to maintain social cohesion. This is probably ingrained in our DNA.

Most of us wouldn’t criticize Americans for refraining from dog meat, or the Japanese for “wasting” time on tea ceremonies and the like. But we should criticize scientists, or those who fund them, for clinging to such medieval concepts as “taboo.” When it comes to science, nothing should be taboo.

Long ago, back in the 1970s AD., my folks took me to Mono Rock, California. We visited an old friend of theirs, whose name I cannot recall. He was eccentric – and he believed that extraterrestrials would fly their spaceships overhead on most nights. We did go out to try to spot some. Indeed, mysterious points of light would suddenly appear in the sky, fly around at high speeds, and perform impossible maneuvers, such as making sudden 90 degree turns while flying very quickly. At least that’s how I remember it. Each time this would happen, air force jets would appear and pursue those points of light. Our friend told us this happens every time the aliens appear.

I mentioned that the man was eccentric. The main reason I say this is that he believed he could communicate with the aliens through quartz crystals. He had a collection of them in his house for that purpose. If memory serves me right, he claimed that certain colors of crystal were more suitable for such communication.

Many years later, I had a coworker who claimed he had been abducted by aliens when he was younger. I might have been inclined to dismiss such tales, except that this particular individual was quite normal, and extremely intelligent.

That’s the extent of my “contact” with extraterrestrials, and I’ll remain an agnostic – until I see them with my own eyes.

This video is from one of the weirder parts of YouTube, but I thought it’s exceptional. Hopefully, at least some of y’all will enjoy it as much as I did. It has nothing to do with the rest of this post.



This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Vox admits that some science is taboo

  1. 370H55V says:

    You didn’t leave a comment prompt for “MSN Fake News”, so I’ll make it here:

    The hands of the guy behind bars don’t look white to me. They could be, but I’m betting they aren’t.

    • jewamongyou says:

      That’s weird. Until now, every post automatically had comments enabled. I’m not sure what happened with that one, but it’s fixed. Could you repost your comment there, and I’ll delete this one? Thanks!

  2. Stealth says:

    I saw a UFO – up close. It was at night and what I saw consisted solely of light, but it was definitely nothing ordinary. Was it an alien craft, or part of one? Well, I don’t know, but I have my doubts. I believe that life is rare, and that humans might be the only life form capable of building what we call civilization. The idea that some other bipedal species with hands evolved near enough in both space and time to come here and have fun being seen on Navy radar is hard for me to swallow.

    • jewamongyou says:

      Based on what you saw, do you have any other rational explanation?

      • Stealth says:

        I tried telling myself that it was a bad dream, or a hallucination. I also considered that it might have been a firefly outside the window. Of course, fireflies don’t generally shine as brightly as car headlights, but who knows? Right?

        The only problem with those guesses is that other people saw it, too. In fact, the first person I spoke to the next day told me that both he and two others he knew had seen a UFO that night, and he approached me with this information not knowing that I had seen the same thing.

        Still, it’s just hard for me to believe that I might have seen something extraterrestrial.

  3. dcanaday says:

    Calling something a UFO isn’t an explanation. You saw something. It was flying. But you don’t know what it was. It doesn’t mean that you saw aliens. And here’s the thing. It would require extraordinary amd detailed evidence to come to the conclusion that you saw aliens or an alien spacecraft. That’s because we don’t know what aliens look like at all. So calling something alien is the equivalent of saying, “God did it.” We really know nothing about God and we know nothing about aliens.

    So if we see something weird and we have no idea what it is, we go through a process of elimination. Was it a civilian aircraft? Was it a meteor? Was it a satellite? Was it Venus. We keep going and going until we find out what it was, or we’ve exhausted every explanation we can come up with. And just because we’ve done that, doesn’t mean that it must be aliens. It just means that it is something we haven’t thought of or encountered yet. Or we made a mistake. Or it was an experimental military aircraft, which would be difficult to eliminate as a possible explanation without cooperation from the Air Force.

    So, to conclude that we’ve encountered aliens we would need something extraordinary, such as an actual alien spacecraft. Or a live alien. Or a dead alien (after someone has done an autopsy).

    Seeing a tic tac shaped object on a video just isn’t enough for me or anyone to draw any conclusions.

    • jewamongyou says:

      It’s not clear if your comment is directed at Stealth, or at the original article. I do agree with you though – with the caveat that it’s fun to entertain the thought that what we saw might be extraterrestrial beings.

  4. There is taboo, and there is absolute taboo in research. Taboo is race https://truthrevolution.net/truespeech/
    Both Right and Left conspire: The truth about “minority” crime must not be said
    The gag orders are not just a leftist conspiracy. All parties, from Left to Right, are part of this strange conspiracy to repress #TrueSpeech, to withhold the truth from the public. In 1971,right wing ex US President Richard Nixon was worried about the public discovering race differences: “ First, nobody must know we are thinking about it, and second, if we do find out it’s correct we must never tell anybody.” 14 * 15 and “. . My theory is that the responsibility of a president, in my present position, first, is to know these things. But also my theory is that I must do everything I possibly can to deny them. . . . If we do not, what we are going to do is encourage a latent prejudice that is in all of us. In other words, it’s the unthinkable. ”16. We agree with the author that deliberately lying about race and IQ does not keep the racial peace, as Nixon seemed to believe. It stirs up blacks by encouraging them to think that all their problems are our fault. This is the best possible way to teach them to hate us. 17 * 18

  5. Total taboo is underage sex and child pornography. And most immigration conservatives are totally opposed to any legalization of sex with 17 year old “children”. Example is the Rind study, absolute and total taboo.Uniquely condemned by totally unanimous votes of US senate and congress. The Rind study, of course, is now considered “discredited” because no sane person would do a study to confirm the findings, though there still is no serious evidence to discredit it.
    Bruce Rind Study: Scientific Publications Condemned and Repressed by US Congress and Senate
    One of the most prestigious peer reviewed research journals of the American Psychological Association published a meta-research (an overview of lots of other research papers) with disturbing findings. Result: the US Senate and US congress condemned the Research. After all, the preconceived notions behind our criminalization of Teenage Sexuality must not be disturbed.\

    The authors’ stated goal was “…to address the question: In the population of persons with a history of CSA [child sexual abuse], does this experience cause intense psychological harm on a widespread basis for both genders?” Some of the authors’ more controversial conclusions were that child sexual abuse does not necessarily cause intense, pervasive harm to the child;[3] that the reason the current view of child sexual abuse was not substantiated by their empirical scrutiny was because the construct of CSA was questionably valid; and that the psychological damage caused by the abusive encounters depends on whether the encounter was consensual or not.[1]

    Rind et al. concluded with a statement that even though CSA may not result in harm, this does not mean it is not wrong or morally repugnant behavior and denied that their findings implied current moral and legal prohibitions against CSA should be changed.[1] Numerous pro-pedophile advocacy organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws, and defense attorneys have used the study to argue for minimizing harm in child sexual abuse cases.[4][5] Wikipedia on Bruce Rind

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *