https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift

A paradigm shift is a fundamental change in the basic concepts and experimental practices of a scientific discipline. It is a concept in the philosophy of science that was introduced and brought into the common lexicon by the American physicist and philosopher Thomas Kuhn.
…
In his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn explains the development of paradigm shifts in science into four stages:

Normal science – In this stage, which Kuhn sees as most prominent in science, a dominant paradigm is active. This paradigm is characterized by a set of theories and ideas that define what is possible and rational to do, giving scientists a clear set of tools to approach certain problems.
…
Extraordinary research – When enough significant anomalies have accrued against a current paradigm, the scientific discipline is thrown into a state of crisis. To address the crisis, scientists push the boundaries of normal science in what Kuhn calls “extraordinary research”, which is characterized by its exploratory nature.
…
Adoption of a new paradigm – Eventually a new paradigm is formed, which gains its own new followers. For Kuhn, this stage entails both resistance to the new paradigm, and reasons for why individual scientists adopt it. According to Max Planck, “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Because scientists are committed to the dominant paradigm, and paradigm shifts involve gestalt-like changes, Kuhn stresses that paradigms are difficult to change. However, paradigms can gain influence by explaining or predicting phenomena much better than before …During this phase, proponents for competing paradigms address what Kuhn considers the core of a paradigm debate: whether a given paradigm will be a good guide for future problems – things that neither the proposed paradigm nor the dominant paradigm are capable of solving currently.

Aftermath of the scientific revolution – In the long run, the new paradigm becomes institutionalized as the dominant one. Textbooks are written, obscuring the revolutionary process.
…
A common misinterpretation of paradigms is the belief that the discovery of paradigm shifts and the dynamic nature of science (with its many opportunities for subjective judgments by scientists) are a case for relativism: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal. Kuhn vehemently denies this interpretation and states that when a scientific paradigm is replaced by a new one, albeit through a complex social process, the new one is always better, not just different.

The final paragraph quoted explains why the leftists’ paradigmatic theories (socialism, CRT and DEI, to name a few) are not scientific paradigms.

These statements, apparently assuming that we today, at this stage in our development as a species, have a complete and total understanding of all the forces at work in our Universe, about how they operate, and what limitations they might place on us.

This kind of assumption seems not only extremely arrogant, but totally ridiculous to me considering that, a hundred years or so ago horses were still being used in major cities for transportation, the Wright brothers were just getting a few feet off the ground at Kitty Hawk, radios were just coming into use, there was no such thing as a TV or computer, some people were worried that if you traveled more that a few miles an hour in a newfangled automobile, you might die from the effects of the “high” speeds involved, and astronomers of the time believed that the Milky Way was the entire extent of our Universe.

A paradox is a paradox not because the universe is somehow misbehaving, but because there is something wrong with our thinking about it. We like to believe it is one truth and one lie – but we often don’t know which one is true – if either.

Geoffrey Britain:

Where are they?

https://www.planetary.org/articles/3390

Still, presumably some life forms thousands or millions of years more advanced than us could have signaled to us by now. So either there is none, or it’s much farther away than a few hundred or thousand light years.

The convincing, objective evidence which makes me think that the top 5% of truly “unidentified” UFOs are very likely “not of this Earth,” is their flight characteristics–the “five observables”–which have quite often been observed simultaneously by several different sensing systems–the Mark I eyeballs of highly trained pilots (sometimes several of them, simultaneously), and by various radar, and other sensing systems.

Something that can be observed by such sensor systems “flying” through the atmosphere at speeds of many thousands of miles per hour–sometimes an estimated ten or even twenty thousand miles per hour–is not a “balloon,” not “swamp gas,” a “canopy reflection,” an “electronic sensor glitch,” an “adversary aircraft,” a “drone,” or a “misperceived star or planet,” neither is an object which is able to instantaneously accelerate, or to perform abrupt, sometimes a series of many, right angle turns, when the tremendous G-forces generated by even one such a turn (calculated at hundreds or even thousands of Gs) would literally convert any human pilot into jelly.

FYI I’ve read that Human fighter pilots (suited up with special g-suits and other special, top of the line equipment) can withstand about 9Gs of force before blacking out and risking permanent physical damage, whereas our top of the line fighters start to disintegrate when the G forces on them reach around 16Gs.

An object which is observed by multiple sensor systems to drop from 80,000 feet–at the edge of space–down to ocean level in little more than a second (one calculation which has been made is that performing this maneuver alone would require expending the equivalent of the total amount of energy used by New York city in a whole year) is not a bird, or the misperceived moon.

An object which flies but has no control surfaces—no wings, no tail or tails, no propellers, rudders–and no engine or rocket exhaust should not be able to fly, yet, these UFOs do.

An object which can fly out to the edge of space, fly into our atmosphere and, later, dive into and out of our oceans, is not a balloon, a drone, a diving bird, or any other everyday object.

Aircraft in our human inventory cannot just hover-and, in particular, cannot hover without any sound (recall how loud a helicopter is when it flies low, over you, or your house) sometimes hovering for hours.

Everyday objects–those supposedly commonly mistaken for UFOs-should not be able to spoof various sophisticated surveillance systems, to be essentially invisible, or to fade in and out of visibility, yet, these UFOs do just that.

It is for these reasons that I think that UFOs are real, and most likely of extraterrestrial, or perhaps extra-temporal, or even extra-dimensional origin.

Since early recorded history, there have been untold thousands of reports of UFO-type phenomena that could be associated with aliens or alien technology. It is reasonable to hypothesize that many of these reports were the result of unusual circumstance, innocent ignorance, or even deceit. Some are positively laughable, but many are not! I have myself witnessed several occurrences that I at first thought might be UFOs, but which I subsequently understood were not.

But what is NOT reasonable is to make the blanket assumption that EVERY ONE of these hundreds and thousands of reports are false, especially without any serious investigation, only a search for anything with which to debunk. Like I said above, the key word in Fermi’s paradox is “no”.

It only takes ONE, and the “paradox” goes poof!

Even if the variables preceding those four that turn out to increase (tenfold, a hundredfold, a googleplexfold) beyond what we currently perceive, a zero in one of the final four = zero.