UFO's, Aliens, and abduction as well as anything considered outside of the mainstream is hard to talk about with most people, because of the mind set of our society. All you have to do is mention one of the subjects and you usually get some kind of off the cuff humorous remark and no one likes to be thought of as a fool. There is embarrassment and the worry of what others will think of you as a person. You have to be confident in who you are to continue to talk about this subject. If you do continue to talk about it you get the “strange look” like you just grew a second head on your shoulders! So in a way there is a kind of auto-censorship of these subjects.

This is not the only place this type of social censorship takes place either. It is alive and well in the scientific community. For instance in the archaeological community. In our past there a anomalies of many kinds when it comes to ancient construction methods and writings. It is obvious to me that there can be more then one hypothesis to some of these mysteries. Are all stories of the Gods just myths? Could there be some truth buried in them? There are amazing similarities to these “Myths”! All around the world they seemed to have shared similar construction techniques and astronomical interests. Was there some common influence? Anytime someone dares to look at a piece of evidence in a different way, they are instantly brought down by the community. Even if they use the same scientific methods of their colleges, if it is to far out of the conventional wisdom they will be at risk!

Even in Physics, (a science I wish I knew more about) it is a science that is suppose to be open to new theories, you run into this automatic censorship when it comes to zero point energy and tapping into dark matter. I certainly don’t understand it all, but there are some interest new theories out there.

Unfortunately this resistance to change is well documented in our past. The Earth is Flat isn’t it! The sun goes around the Earth doesn’t it! These ideals are laughed at now. What ideals will we be laughing at in the future?

We are so slow to except change that it is a wonder we have the wheel! I have been guilty of this way of thinking myself. I have been so sure that I was right, that I had to find out for myself I was wrong. Why are we so against admitting we were wrong? I think it would be better if we would all try and humble ourselves a little more and except that we do not know all.

Well-said, Agnostic. I especially sat up in my seat when you started talking about science. Michael Crichton sometimes calls this 'thintelligence', sometimes referring to overspecialization, but sometimes referring to people who don't want to think beyond certain limits. Yes, science is supposed to be open to new ideas, and yet most science is no longer finding out 'why': it's all centered around 'proving' a 'hypothesis', which lends itself too readily to a situation in which any evidence that doesn't match the hypothesis is discarded as random data.

Sometimes we definitely DO need to think out of the box.

I know what you mean. I was taught physics in university and when we asked about how fast gravity was, the answer was "The speed of light." We asked if it was ever measured. No. We wanted to use special theory of relativity equations to handle gravity phenomenon. We were told that it won't work. The math won't come out properly. We were told to use an instantaneous value of gravity. ( Assume that it takes no time for gravity to travel from one place to another and do the calculations. ) Everything was taught in a confident manner when it should have been a more cautious manner. We are sure of things, even if we are wrong. All this should tell us that our present ideas on gravity must be put aside and re-evaluated. Some will be carried forward and others will be discarded. The problem with the scientific community is that someone has an idea and has to "prove" it. If they can't then the data is dismissed as an anomaly and treated as suspect. Not the theory. Some scientists ( the worst kind ) even modify the data to suit their theories. These people are eventually found out and their theories are usually dismissed as "crack pot". The trouble is that "out there" theories are also dismissed out of hand as "crack pot" as well. I can't imagine it, therefore it doesn't work that way. I have to prove my theory or I will not be given any attention by my colleagues.

Yes, well put.
It is indeed a sad fact that many are this way and never admit to it or steadfast deny it.