[RoosterRedux]

policymakers presented with compelling evidence of an impending catastrophe “often go into an implicit state of denial. They may not dispute the evidence and reject the warning, but they don’t act as though they actually believe it to be true.”

I see that kind of behavior everywhere regarding this issue. Academia has been the most flagrant "victim" of this trap. It's a logical fallacy that ranks right up there with "correlation/cause" errors.

[RoosterRedux]

I meant to add the following to comment #3 above:

a unique cognitive trap can impede objective analysis or action on UFOs. If decisionmakers believe that a technology, risk or threat simply cannot exist, then all data indicating otherwise is ignored, trivialized or explained away.

Clarke alludes to this “It can’t be, so it isn’t” phenomenon, writing that policymakers presented with compelling evidence of an impending catastrophe “often go into an implicit state of denial.