What I find interesting about stories like these is that scientists, including social scientists, are supposed to be intrigued by these kinds of anomalies. Even if they do not fundamentally disqualify a scientific theory, the scientific community often keeps lists of observed anomalies to encourage further research into the gaps in our understanding to expand, and if necessary alter conceptual frameworks. The fact that the thousands of testimonies of positive experiences like Edgar's make up scarcely a footnote in CSA ideology to me can only indicate that they are not anomalies at all and the government-funded researchers know this very well.
As long as CSA researchers are faced with one anecdote at a time, they can ignore it. And if they're ignoring it, the public will never even hear a whisper about it. The only thing that can crack this wall of silence is powerful, focused blows hitting all at once. Of course, it's dangerous. T. Rivas apparently pulled his book Positive Memories from ipce, and we all saw what Rind went through, but activism like this makes the authorities defensive and angry. Defensiveness and anger in these "experts" encourage the public's willingness to ask questions while the chilling, Nefertiti-like gaze of the academic establishment certainly does not. Keep the establishment on its toes for long enough and eventually it will lose its balance. That's when what Kuhn calls a "paradigm shift" is most likely to occur. Society has already adapted to new stimuli more than anyone ever could have predicted. I think it can do it again.
Sam Hall 1 January 2021
I tend to think our Nefertiti-like social scientists would sooner gouge out their one remaining eye than take a dispassionate look at the evidence, be it clinical, anecdotal, historical, artistic, anthropological or zoological.
Then again, your optimism is a far healthier approach.
Comments powered by CComment