>>12822270it depends on what era
the CIA's research was spotty at best because when the officers were changed they'd go between ones who genuinely wanted to try the research and ones who thought it was stupid and wanted it shut down
>>12822077>Besically, what you need to realize here is that various ideas that were either well accepted or at the least had the general scientific body open to their consideration back in the 20's to ~ the 1970's, are now taboo and you'll be subject to systematic gaslighting if you try to study or discuss it. Though that's not to say hard scientific literature is not still produced, simply that it's responded to in political and religious terms by the surrounding culture.This is accurate and applies to almost any scientific idea which goes against any other entrenched ones. I know a couple of otherwise respected physicists who can't get people listening to their ideas because they're heterodox. Many of these are relatively mundane things, like proposing an alternative mechanism to the Higgs field. Schwinger himself said journals would never give him a fair hearing when he wanted to propose mechanisms for cold fusion.
When it comes to ESP etc. you've got many well-known cases of these so-called debunkers behaving dishonestly because there's nothing enforcing fair observation, so they behave like Snopes. James Randi would throw out evidence without even looking at it, then use the fact that nobody has claimed his prize successfully to dismiss the possibility of paranormal phenomena.
It's particularly stupid because basically any of the things we take for granted now would be considered paranormal at a point early enough in our history. The idea of nuclear reactions would be like magic. People would just see a mystical object which causes people to get sick and die without any contact. They'd call it a cursed metal, and now we just call it uranium or plutonium.
So to dismiss the paranormal out of hand is scientific malpractice.
