The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

The Hypocrisy of the Socialist Anthropogenic Global Warming Agenda

global social warmingIt is indeed ironic that Big Socialism is manifesting at the forefront of the previously ethical movement over concerns about Anthropogenic Global Warming. Ironic since history is clearly linking Big Socialism explicitly as the major cause of the carbon contribution problem in the first place. Our ‘oh so smart’ academic scientists have fallen for this sleight-of-hand yet again; demonstrating for an eigth consecutive decade that they not only fail to grasp economic principles of business, but moreover fail to perceive when they are being manipulated by powerful global social forces who could care less about the Earth – only employing it as a battering ram in the war to enslave mankind under their voracious form of tyranny. The Economist exposes why the most recent flurry of Social Skeptic push campaigns have hit the press:  Why Climate Change is Suddenly Back on the Agenda.

This is not about Climate Change – This is about Political Change. 

And the Earth is the innocent victim of Socialism in two ways: First at the hand of misleading policitcs, and second ironically through Big Socialism’s actual primary contribution as THE major cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming

Seven Ways in Which Big Socialism is THE Major Cause of AGW

They created the problem, and now purport to be its solution. Sound familiar?
1.  Exploitation of Highly Remote Socialist Work Camp Slave Manufacturing Labor
global social warming 2

By enslaving the working class and selling their captured value as manufacturing slaves, we ensure that products can only be made in the most remote socialist slave labor countries. As a result, the products they produce must be shipped great distances in order to be consumed. These were products which formerly shipped an average distance of 200 miles in many cases within classic capital business scenarios.  Produced by ethical family driven businesses which valued local community and local community labor. This new remote aggregation of manufacturing results in massive trade agencies and shipping consolidation groups which ensure that the average consumer good ships over 3500 miles before it is consumed – and that the retail and wholesale buyers who write the purchase orders are instructed to only buy from authorized Big Socialism shipping centers.  That includes every 24 cent trinket and every $9 t-shirt ever worn. In fact, if you examine the world list of socialist states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states(, you will find that these states comprise in excess of 75% of the world’s consumer goods manufacturing.

2.  Aggregation of Slave Labor into Highly Remote Domestic MegaCommunities with Poor Infrastructure
global social warming 3

A natural outcome of aggregating work camps into highly remote slave labor centers, is that manufacturing centers are aggregated into regions of carbon unaccountability, where emissions are not only not monitored, but the remote aggregation of people employed in the workforce forces those in the community to resort to ancient methods of survival and preparation of food.  Families employing the domestic burning of wood, cow dung and coal (highly toxic fumigant sources) in order to provide energy for their homes.  Young people left bereft of means of birth control, with absent long shift working parents.  All this creating an unsustainable severe drain on our environment, even independent of Climate Change. In fact, dollar for dollar, Socialist manufacturing countries produce 20+ x the carbon soot emissions as compared to the same size exporting non-socialist country (http://www.wisegeek.org/what-are-the-top-manufacturing-countries.htm).

3.  Aggregation of Carbon Intensive Business into the Most Unaccountable and Irresponsible Political Climates
socialism creates global warming

Socialism takes advantage of political structures with low levels of accountability, and seeks to dominate people who have lost their ability to stand on their own and hold their government accountable. In this environment, Big Socialism is able to more effectively hide the always incumbent royalty and pseudo-egalitarian elite groups who siphon the wealth out of the Big Socialism system.  But this same tendency to hide and retreat from global accountability bears manifest, problems with respect to accountability within the countries Big Socialism has seen fit to conquer and dominate.  It is solidly and unequivocally no coincidence, that the countries in the chart to the right which contribute the greatest contribution of carbon into the planet’s environment, all are Big Socialist countries.   As you may see in the graphic to the right, provided by the World Economic Forum, 10 of the top 15 carbon and soot emitting nations are members of Big Socialism. It is clear that Big Socialism only TALKS a lot about Climate Change.  Sound a lot like Social Skepticism and the scientific method? Social Skeptics remain the hapless pawns of this movement and its desire to influx its philosophies into western economic practices.

4. Conversion of Lean Competitive Capital Business into Bloated Bureaucratic Oligarch Big Box and Monopoly Socialist Elite Dominated Industry
global social warming 4

AGW proponents have a nasty habit of trying to blame carbon contributions on the activity of capitalist and Western business.  But the sad fact remains, that as our businesses get more dominant, and cut out smaller competitors, resources tend to aggregated into the hands of a few, production centers are reduced, local labor is put out of work, and product must be dedicated to massive Oligarch driven empires which generate carbon as a predatory way of using efficiency to put capital competitive businesses out of business. Ethical business owners must die off and give way to the detached and procedurally obedient workslave executive, inhabiting a suit. Execubots trained by universities who only understand efficiency as a means-to-MEGA, and no longer grasp the heart of what values bolster ethical business or healthy economies. If you examine the official list of sweatshop labor practice countries, those where the state allows manufacturing to abuse its labor, and provide a totalitarian environment in which labor has not other choice of work, you will find the majority of these countries to be Big Socialist ( http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1369) in their government, business and economics.

5.  An Ever Increasing Lust for Control Mandates that Each Year Must Surpass the Last (or Risk Collapse of the Empire)
global social warming 5

Box business, means that each year, the domination must increase – and the increase in revenue must come at any cost; or the slave enterprise risks losing control. Think of what will happen when China hits its first real depression. Big Socialism knows that it cannot survive a depression.  They will push for mega increases in revenue, even at the cost of ethical employment of resources, or in the face of over-production versus demand to mitigate the risk of long lead times between manufacturing and consumption.  This is the sad current reality of the China to US/Europe supply cycle under which we now suffer.  As well, we currently waste 40+% of the food we produce in socialist growing regions through post harvest perishment and non-consumption globally.  But the over production is part of the Socialist manifesto of business.  There is no LEAN process in Socialism.  There is efficiency, but only when needed to kill all competitors.  Then that goes by the wayside in lieu of the need for mega revenues.  If you think that Nestlé, Blue Cross and Walmart are capitalist enterprises, you need to go apply for a refund from your graduate business university. In fact, the two top Socialist labor employing nations, rely upon a track record of slave labor to produce a smooth curve of growth without major recession, for the past 55 years.  This, rather than an effect of competent business practice, is indeed an outcome of being able to force more production/overproduction year after year and depend upon consuming countries to accept the incumbent product dumping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_GDP_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#mediaviewer/File:China_india_gdp.jpg).

6.  The Polarization of Politics into an Environmentally Impotent Artifice Effective only at Absolute Control of the Population
global social warming 6

It is no secret that the majority of the Social Skepticism movement, the pawns who are cluelessly employed to further the goals of Big Socialism, possess a lock step disdain for certain politics and sectors of our society. Tweets from the SSkeptic community continue to be embarrassingly awash with latet misandry, hatred of Caucasians, hatred of stay at home mom’s, hatred of families and every disdained remnant of the America they were trained to defeat. I am a critic of both sides of the political aisle as it comes to the application of good science and good sound economic policy. But when I survey the landscape of political extremism and irrationality which inhabits the halls of US Academia and Big Socialism proponents in the Social Skepticism movement, it renders me, even as a moderate, a great dead repulsed.  The net of this is polarization; a purposeful division which ensures that nothing will get done, except hate.  The Earth will be the victim, as conservative and moderates grow increasingly skeptical of the political agendas, and our elected representatives are emasculated of any ability to accomplish policy in western governments.  The Social Skepticism movement is led and chartered by Socialist and Big Party democrats who make it clear that they will gladly sell science based on politics.  A great example can be found here (http://www.skepticblog.org/2014/09/06/false-equivalence/) and here (http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/how-to-be-a-science-denier/).  After all, power and political domination is the real goal. The Earth is simply a playing card in their game of political domination. You will notice that Steven Novella and Donald Prothero are exceedingly quiet about proposed solutions to AGW, and the need to divert carbon from our Value Chains. The solutions are there, solutions which do not entail the adoption of Socialism (not that Socialism will help in the least) but these guys just don’t seem to be able to talk about them much.

7.  The Destruction of the Human Problem Solving Spirit
enslavement of nihilism

The final nail in the coffin of mankind (and the Earth), through the deleterious effect of Big Socialism, is its insistence that only the Elite and their obedient cronies are allowed to possess meaningful lives.  Big Socialism has made it clear that it will gladly destroy the planet in its quest for domination.  But moreover, Big Socialism has another effect, probably the most damaging of all.  That of destroying our spirit, our ability to create, our ability to counter and strive for survival, our gumption to face a big problem and seek to win.  Big Socialism kills all within man that is driven by a ‘more than just me’ ethical boldness. Big Socialism kills our spirit as creative problems solvers and dreamers – just the kind of ethical people who can cure cancer, go to the moon, and help solve issues like Climate Change. The decline in American optimism is rising commensurate with the tyrranical obsession our Social Skeptics have placed onto destroying certain strength sectors of our society. They continue to ignore the alarms, fail to be circumspect about who is formulating their propaganda, and run through a process of denial when faced with any argument which runs counter to their form of Big Socialism and its decaying effect on a free society (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-americans-optimism-is-dying/2014/08/12/f81808d8-224c-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html).

With Big Socialism, we lose our soul first, then we lose our lives.

TES Signature

September 23, 2014 Posted by | Deskeption, Institutional Mandates | , , | Leave a comment

The Ethical Skeptic’s Reference to Commonly Employed Fallacious Skepticism

The following is The Ethical Skeptic’s list, useful in spotting both formal and informal logical fallacies, cognitive biases, statistical broaches and styles of crooked thinking on the part of those in the Social Skepticism movement.¹ It is categorized by fallacy employment context so that it can function as a context appropriate resource in a critical review of an essay or article by a thought enforcing Social Skeptic. To assist this, I have created an intuitive taxonomy of nine contextual fallacy mischaracterization or misrepresentation usage groups: Opponents, Data, Method, Science, Argument, Assumptions, Groups, Self and Authorities.

Fallacy List Header

.

Mischaracterization of Opponents

fallacy opponentFalse Ally - citing that even the most extreme members of an opponent’s assumed group of inclusion agree with the position of the proponent’s argument.

Google Goggles – warped or blinded perception cultivated through reliance on web searches for one’s information and understanding. Vulnerability to web opinions where every street doubter pretends to be an authority on science, every Cabal member and celebrity is falsely lauded and every unapproved person is disparaged through hyperbole and misinformation.

Style over Substance Fallacy – the undermining of an opponent and their argument or data by citing that it looks too pushed, packaged or promoted (for money) in order to be deemed acceptable or believable.

Credulity Fallacy – the contention or implication that an opponent or group of opponents does not practice evidence based, rational or critical thinking simply because they disagree with the proponent or can be pigeon holed into a group disdained by the proponent or the proponent’s organization.

Appeal to Motive – a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis or a set of data or observations by calling into question the motives of its proposer.

Ad Feminam – is marked by the discrediting of an argument, data or observation by appealing to the apparent or assumed bias towards or irrelevant personal considerations concerning women, especially prejudices against them on the part of an opponent. Applies also in the cases of reference to minorities or the disadvantaged.

Abusive Ad Hominem – usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent, including implying their lacking of critical thinking skills or rationality or membership in a pigeon hole of stupidity, which are irrelevant to the argument at hand, as a means to invalidate the arguments of the opponent.

Ad Hominem Fallacy – inappropriately citing the objections of an opponent as constituting an ad hominem attack, when the objections are simply made as counter evidence to the claims a proponent has made regarding themselves and the veracity of data and argument which results from this declared status of self.

Masked Man Fallacy – the contention that an opponent cannot be scientific or rational because the skeptic knows a good scientist or rational thinker when they see one; and the opponent is not one.

Affirmative Characterization from a Negative Premise – believers in this subject are typically credulous, and credulous people do not command science; therefore all believers in this subject are pseudo scientists.

Characterization of the Undistributed Middle – all pseudo scientists promote un-vetted data, the proponent of this argument promoted un-vetted data (in my view), therefore the promoter of this argument is a pseudo scientist.

Ecological Fallacy - where inferences about the nature of individuals are deduced from inference for the group to which those individuals belong.

Fallacy of Composition – the contention or implication that an opponent’s belonging to a specific group of people, inside of which are held extreme positions or actions, is indicative of their adherence to those same positions and action sets; and further then that the membership in this group invalidates their ideas, observations or data.

Taxonomy Fallacy – the illegitimate assignment or characterization of a proponent of a set of ideas, into a disfavored, extreme or fanatical group; in an effort to discredit the set of ideas without undertaking or possessing the research, evidence or qualifications necessary to justify such assignment.

Belief Accusing – the pejorative categorization of an individual expressing a contention into a stereotypical ‘true believers’ box pertaining to such contention.  The fallacy of presumption and insult which implies that the victim is neither intelligent enough, informed enough nor of sufficiently social or credible status to merit possession of an epistemologically derived conclusion; therefore they must only ‘believe.’

Credulity Accusing – accusing a person of practicing pseudoscience and credulity simply because they are regarding an outlier idea.  A credulist may be wrong, but as long as they are not pretending to represent Science or claim to be using the Scientific Method, they are not practicing pseudoscience; rather, are merely guilty of being receptive to an untested conclusion.

Flattery Apology – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made condemning a group of people in which the opponent is included, while citing that the opponent is the acceptable and rational version of the member of that group (i.e. present company excepted, etc.).

Wishful Accusing – accusing a person of making a decision with regard to data or observations according to what the opponent believes might be pleasing to imagine on their part, rather than according to evidence or reason. The minor implication imbedded being that the opponent exhibits no such fault.

Forrest Gump Bias – the regard of a person’s ideas, contentions, data or observations as being unacceptable, simply because the person is genetically, economically, physically, mentally, or socially different or perceived to be of a lower class level by an observer.

Psychogenetic Fallacy – inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. It is wrong to assume that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased or credulous mind, then the idea itself must also be a false.

Judgmental Language – insulting or pejorative language employed to influence the recipient’s judgment, intimidate or imply the superior status or rationality of the opponent.

Tu Quoque (“you too”) – an argument stating that since the opponent has conducted a fallacy, logical broach or hypocrisy then the proponent should not be held to account for violations, or stands correct in their position due to the opponent having made errors, the same or similar errors.

Appeal to Hypocrisy – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position.

Negativity Effect – the tendency of people, when evaluating the causes of the behaviors of a person they dislike, to attribute their positive behaviors to the environment and their negative behaviors to the person’s inherent nature or weaknesses.

Omission Bias – the tendency to judge harmful actions of opponents as worse, or less moral, than equally harmful omissions on the part of allies.

Restraint Bias – the tendency to overestimate one’s ability to show restraint or demonstrate character in the face of temptation to behave badly. The overestimation of the acts of others as being beneath your level of sophisticated self control.

Stereotyping – expecting a member of a group to possess certain characteristics reasonably or unreasonably assigned to that group, without having actual information about that individual.

Extrinsic Incentives Bias – an exception to the fundamental attribution error, when people view others as having (situational) extrinsic motivations and (dispositional) intrinsic motivations for oneself.

Illusion of Transparency – people overestimate others’ ability to know them, and they also overestimate their ability to know others.

Semantics Jousting – the twisting of the context inside which a quotation or idea has been expressed such that it appears to support a separate argument and inappropriately promote a desired specific outcome.

Misrepresentation of Data

fallacy dataEquivocation – the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning, sense, or use in professional context by glossing over which meaning is intended in the instance of usage, in order to mis-define, inappropriately include or exclude data in an argument.

Continuum Fallacy – erroneous rejection of a vague claim or loosely defined data set simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be.

Trivia Fallacy – the rejection of a entire set of data by the pointing out of one questionable or disliked element inside the data.

Antiquing Fallacy – the dismissal of an entire field of data by showing its false, hoax based or dubious past inside a set of well known anecdotal cases. Also the instance where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held.

Monkey Suit Fallacy – the dismissal of an entire field of data simply by abusing a position of authority or citing an authority declaring the data to all to be the result of hoaxes.

Observation Denial Special Pleading –  a form of spurious data and observation dismissal where a proponent introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details regarding the observation, through alleging a need to apply additional considerations, without proper criticism or vetting of these considerations.

Existential Fallacy of Data – the implication or contention that there is an absence of observation or data supporting an idea, when in fact no observational study at all, or of any serious import has been conducted by science on the topic at hand.

Appeal to Apati Fallacy – ‘Appeal to the hoax’ fallacy of presumption and irrelevance.  The attempt to impugn a subject by citing or fabricating a history or incident involving a hoax of one or more of the subject’s contentions.  The fallacy resides in the fact that if it exists, there is porn of it; and likewise, if it exists or not, there is a hoax of it.

Associative Condemnation – the attempt to link controversial subject A with personally disliked subject B, in an effort to impute falsehood to subject B though the association of some idea or keyword common to both topics.  Guilt through association and lumping all subjects into one subjective category.  This typically will involve a context shift or definition expansion in a key word as part of the justification.

Observation vs Claim Blurring – the false practice of calling an observation of data, a ‘claim’ on the observers’ part.  This in an effort to subjugate such observations into the category of constituting scientific claims which therefore must be supported by sufficient data before they may be regarded by science.  In fact an observation is simply that, a piece of evidence or a fact, and its false dismissal under the pretense of being deemed a ‘claim’ is a practice of deception and pseudoscience.

Confirmation Bias – the tendency to immediately accept propaganda published in the opponent’s favored group, and to reject observations, data or ideas which do not fit the opponent’s favored models.

Furtive fallacy – undesired data and observations are asserted to have been caused by the malfeasance of researchers or laymen.

Historian’s fallacy – occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decisions; therefore the levels of bunk, belief and credulity can be used to dismiss past events with historically credible persons, just as the same as they are employed in modern discourse.

Ignoring as Accident – exceptions or even massive sets of data and observational counter-evidence to an enforced generalization are ignored as anecdotes or accidents.

Fallacy of Relative Privation – dismissing an avenue of research due its waste of scientists’ time and to the existence of more important, but unrelated, problems in the world which require priority research.

Base Rate Fallacy – an error in thinking where, if presented with related base rate information (i.e. generic, general information) and specific information (information only pertaining to a certain anecdotal case), the mind tends to ignore the former and focus on the latter in characterizing the whole set of relevant data regarding a subject.

Experimenter’s Bias – the tendency for experimenters to believe, certify, and publish data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment, and to disbelieve, discard, or downgrade the corresponding weightings for data that appear to conflict with those expectations.

Less is Better Bias – the tendency to prefer a smaller set of data to a larger set of data judged separately, but not jointly, so as to capitalize off the increased variability of the small set of data as it supports an extreme or conforming opinion.

Not Invented Here Bias – aversion to contact with or use of products, research, standards, or knowledge developed outside a group in which one is a member or with which one associates.

Pareidolia Bias –  a presumption that any challenging observation can only be solely the result of vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) errantly perceived as significant by the observer.

Semmelweis Reflex – the tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts one’s held paradigm.

Survivorship Bias – concentrating on the people or data that “survived” some process and inadvertently overlooking those that didn’t because of their lack of observability.

Shared Information Bias – known as the tendency for group members to spend more time and energy discussing information that all members are already familiar with (i.e., shared information), and less time and energy discussing information that only some members are aware of (i.e., unshared information).

Google Reaction Effect – The tendency to discount as unimportant or invalid, information that can be found readily online by using Internet search engines.

Google Goggles – warped or errant information cultivated through reliance on web searches as one’s resource or base of understanding. Vulnerability to web opinions where every street doubter can dismiss observations as a pretend authority on science, every claim represented as being by science is immediately accepted and every public observation is deemed a fable or a hoax.

Von Restorff Effect – the bias inducing principle that an item that sticks out is more likely to be remembered than other items.

Zeigarnik Effect – states that people remember uncompleted or interrupted tasks better than completed tasks. This imparts a bias to refute arguments or ideas which are unfinished.

Apophenia Bias – the immediate dismissal of data as being manufactured, mis-analyzed, or reflecting random patterns which are ascribed empirical meaning, without having conducted the research into the data, nor possessing the background in the discipline involved in order to be able to make such a claim.

Medium Fallax – the tendency to regard or promote the mean (μ) or other easily derived statistic as being comprehensively descriptive of the whole body of a set of data; or the process of misleading with statistical indications as to the makeup and nature of a body of data.

Furtive Confidence Fallacy – The refusal to estimate, grasp or apply principles of statistical confidence to collected data and observed arrival distributions, as a means of falsely bolstering the perceived validity of or avoid the signalling of validity in an observation set or body of data. The act of prematurely declaring or doggedly denying a multiplicity of anecdote to be equal to data.

Amateur Confidence Fallacy – The act of substituting simple probability math to manipulate outcomes, because one does not understand the difference, or because it looks like the same thing to a layman, in instances where only confidence intervals can be correctly applied under the scientific method.

Misrepresentation by Anecdote or Method

fallacy methodCherry Picking – pointing to a talking sheet of circulated individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring or denying a significant portion of related context cases or data that may contradict that position.

Fallacy of Composition by Null Result – the contention that the result of a null set on an experimental observation in an unconstrained domain means that the evidence supporting the idea in question does not exist. The comparison is invalid when the null result is measured in an unconstrained field of measure, assuming it to be comparable to a null result in a constrained domain of measure, as is the instance of testing to effect a medical diagnosis.

Promotification – deception or incompetence wherein only predictive testing methodology was undertaken in a hypothesis reduction hierarchy when more effective falsification pathways or current evidence were readily available, but were ignored.

Predictive Fallacy – the fallacy of applying predictive studies which show the lack of evidence of a particular set of data, in an unconstrained domain of evidence, and presuming this to be scientifically indicative of the Evidence of Absence.

Promotification Pseudo Science – the pseudoscience practice of only developing, or the forcing the sponsor of an idea/set of observations, as a first priority to only fully develop, evidence in support of or a series of predictive-only tests which merely serve to confirm conventional or conforming explanations of that data in question. The act of advertising this methodology as being representative of the ‘scientific method.’

As Science as Law Fallacy - the implication or assumption that something is ‘innocent until proven guilty’ under the scientific method, when in fact this is an incorrect philosophy of hypothesis reduction.

King of the Hill Science (Defaulting) – the pseudo scientific practice of assigning a favored and un-testable hypothesis the status as Null Hypothesis; and then further proclaiming it to be the prevailing conclusion of science, without any supporting evidence or testing, until such time as it can be defeated by new competing science.

Proof Gaming – the pseudoscience of forcing the proponent of a construct or set of data, to immediately and definitively prove their contention, circumventing the scientific method and aid of science, before the contention would ostensibly be allowed to be researched by science.

Hedging – using words with ambiguous meanings, for the planned instance wherein changing the meaning of them later will provide for a plausible way to protect one’s reputation, in case one is found to be wrong on a position of opposition.

Kettle Logic – using multiple inconsistent arguments or discipline examples to defend a specific position or outcome at all costs.

Moving the Goalposts – argument in which evidence successfully presented in response to a specific demand for proof of an observation is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is then demanded.

Plausible Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy – Latin for “after this, therefore because of this” (faulty cause/effect, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) – X could have plausibly happened, and could have plausibly caused Y, then Y happened; therefore X, and nothing else, caused Y.

Proof by Verbosity – submission of others to an argument too complex, meandering and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details.

Proof by Celebrity – submission of others to an argument so over-addressed by biased celebrities, disdained and fraught with media ridicule so as to not reasonably be able to deal with in all its intimate details.

Prosecutor’s Fallacy – a low probability of valid detections does not mean a low probability of some valid detection or data being found.

Probabilistic Fallacy – the presumption that one holds enough data to determine what is probable and improbable in a field of a set of data.

Proving Too Much – using a form of argument to counter observations or ideas, that if it were valid, could imply extrapolated absurd conclusions which cannot be valid, therefore the base argument is invalid, regardless of the data.

False Analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited, used to disprove a challenging or disdained construct.

Discounting Vividness – the invalid presumption that all types of eyewitness testimony are universally faulty, and further, that those involving describing an occurrence in vivid or emotional detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, are immediately suspect and should be discredited.

Untouchable Generalization – a condemning or dismissing generalization that comes with qualifications that eliminate so many cases which could falsify the derogatory claim, that what remains of it is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume. Yet the defamation stands as fiat knowledge and recitation nonetheless.

Slippery Slope – asserting that a relatively small first step in accepting data or ideas inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact/event that should not happen, thus the first step should not happen. While this fallacy is a popular one, it is, in its essence, an appeal to probability fallacy.

Regressive Bias – a certain state of mind wherein perceived high likelihoods are overestimated while perceived low likelihoods are underestimated.

Conservatism – a certain state of mind wherein the tendency to dismiss perceived lower likelihood events or change one’s mind very little when faced with their veracity, is dismissed as an act of rationality.

Focusing Effect – the tendency to place too much importance on one aspect of an event.

Information Diversion – the tendency to continually seek new information on a topic at hand in order to imply the invalidity or indeterminant nature of the subject, or to distract focus away from more relevant but disliked data.

Observer Expectancy Effect – when a researcher expects a given result and therefore unconsciously manipulates an experiment or scientific method or misinterprets data in order to find that expected result.

Planning Fallacy – the tendency to underestimate the amount of science and method involved in adequate address of a subject, or of task-completion times conducted therein.

Reactance – the urge to do the opposite of what someone wants you to do out of a need to resist a perceived attempt to force you out of a constrained adopted choice.

Unit Bias – the tendency to want to finish a given unit of a task or an item to completion before beginning work on, or considering another avenue of research.  The effort to avoid unwanted data by remaining fixated on legacy avenues of research, as a pretense.

Misinformation Selectiveness – Cherry picking of eyewitness data through the belief that memory becomes less accurate because of interference from post-event information,  except for information which a claimant happens to favor.

Reactive Dissonance (in business and legal domains, also called ‘malfeasance’) – the fallacious habitual mindset of a researcher or doctrine of a group conducting research, wherein when faced with a challenging observation, study or experiment outcome, immediately set aside rational data collection, hypothesis reduction and scientific method protocols in favor of crafting a means to dismiss the observation.

Misrepresentation of Science

fallacy scienceCorrelation to Causality Leap – contending that two events which occur together have a cause-and-effect relationship proven by science, since statistics are used to describe them.

Appeal to Skepticism Fallacy – the declaration, assumption or implication that a consensus skeptical position on a topic is congruent with the consensus opinion of scientists on that topic.

One-Liner – this refers to a cliché that is a commonly used phrase, or folk wisdom, sometimes used to quell cognitive dissonance. It is employed to end and win an argument and imply that science has made a final disposition on a matter long ago, when indeed no such conclusion has ever been reached.

Appeal to Scientists Fallacy – an argument that is misrepresented to be the premise held true on the part of the prevailing group of scientists; or concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to a more successful career in science.

Appeal to Probability – the false contention of a skeptic that the most probable, simple, or likely outcome in a set of highly convoluted but unacknowledged assumptions, is therefore the compulsory or prevailing conclusion of science.

Occam’s Razor Fallacy – the false contention that the simplest explanation tends to be the scientifically correct one. Suffers from the weakness that myriad and complex underpinning assumptions, all of which tender the appearance of ‘simplicity,’ have not been vetted by science.

Existential Fallacy (of Science) – the implication or contention that there is no science supporting an idea, or that science has rejected an idea, when in fact no scientific study at all, or of any serious import has been conducted on the topic at hand.

Dismissible Margin Fallacy – presuming that proponents inside a body of embargoed science constitute no more than a couple percentage points or less of all scientists, or that which is less than the Michael Shermer dismissible margin, of the larger body of scientists advised and educated by SSkepticism.

Perfect Solution Fallacy – when solutions to challenging observations are rejected because they are not perfect or the sponsors of the underlying ideas are not perfect.

Argumentum Ad Baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) – a counter argument made through coercion or threats of force on the part of a Social Skeptic, via the media, one’s employment or on one’s scientific reputation.

Appeal to Tradition (argumentum ad antiquitam) – a conclusion advertised as proven scientifically solely because it has long been held to be true.

Bandwagon Effect – The tendency to do (or believe) things because many in the Social Skeptic community do (or believe) the same. See Margold’s Law.

Belief Bias – an effect where someone’s evaluation of the logical strength of an argument is biased by the believability of the conclusion, or suitability under their acknowledged or unacknowledged set of beliefs.

Sunk Cost Skepticism – the phenomenon where SSkeptics justify increased investment or fanaticism in a construct or belief, based on the cumulative prior investment, despite new evidence suggesting that the decision was probably wrong. Fanaticism is directly related to the level of nagging and cumulative inner doubt. Also known as the sunk cost fallacy.

Overconfidence Effect – excessive confidence in one’s own answers to questions. For example, for certain types of questions, answers that people rate as “99% certain” turn out to be wrong 40% of the time.

Pro Innovation Bias – the tendency to have an excessive optimism towards technology or science’s ability to shed light into a subject or advance understanding, while often failing to identify its limitations and weaknesses, and habitually dismissing all other methods.

Reactive Devaluation – devaluing proposals, observations, data or ideas only because they purportedly originated with an adversary group or individual.

Status Quo Bias – the tendency to like things to stay relatively the same, even in the face of necessity and new observations.

Projection Bias – the tendency to unconsciously assume that others (or one’s future selves) share one’s current emotional states, thoughts, ideas, beliefs and values.

System Justification – the tendency to defend and bolster the status quo. Existing social, economic, and political arrangements tend to be preferred, and alternatives disparaged sometimes even at the expense of individual, intellectual and collective self-interest.

Illusion of Truth Effect – that people are more likely to identify as true statements those they have previously heard (even if they cannot consciously remember having heard them), regardless of the actual validity of the statement.

Educative Difficulty Effect – that information acquired in a course of academic instruction or that takes longer to read and is thought about more (processed with more difficulty) is more easily remembered or validly applied.

Science Faction Bias – the forcing of authors, dramas, screenplays, movies and storytellers of science fiction to compulsively conform to an observer’s personal version of science. An irritation with imagination if it wanders into realms which disagree with the observer’s personal ontology, sold as being indignant over violations of established science.

Non Rectum Agitur Fallacy – a purposeful abrogation of the scientific method through the framing and asking of the wrong, ill prepared, unit biased or invalid question, conducted as a pretense of executing the scientific method on the part of a biased participant.

Praedicate Evidentia – the false claim that numerous scientific studies have proven or indicated a proponent’s claim to knowledge, when in fact such studies have addressed a completely different proof, or only one test of merit has been run over and over numerous times, or few or no such studies have indeed been conducted at all.

Fictus Scientia Fallacy – the substitution of skepticism or some twisted form thereof, in place of science, or into the role of speaking on behalf of science or scientists. A contention, purported to be of scientific origin, when in fact, it is not.

Conflation Bias – the tendency of a proponent to be unable or unwilling to distinguish recollection between personal religious or unproven beliefs, and actual accepted science; and the resulting extrapolation of science entailed therein.

Pedantic Smokescreen – the process of deluding self regarding or the process of employing the exclusive and unique principles of science to obscure and justify activities which would otherwise constitute fraud and malfeasance in business and legal domains.

Reification Fallacy – assuming that sciencey sounding words refer to existing and mature elements of science, and that the meaning of words are implicitly qualified within the things they refer to.

Google Goggles – warped or blinded understandings of science or scientific consensus bred through reliance on web searches for one’s information and understanding. Vulnerability to web opinions and misinformation where every street doubter pretends to be an authority on science.

Misrepresentation of Argument

fallacy argumentRed Herring – presentation of an argument that may or may not be logically valid on its own, but distracts the discussion away from a failing argument, as well as failing nonetheless to address the context of the issue in question or address its logical validity.

Begging the Point – the framing of a question from a desired answer in such a fashion that its desired conclusion is the only viable answer.

False Dilemma -committed when one implies that sufficient data exists such that a choice must be made between a constrained subset of options, when no such threshold of data actually exists.

Inverse Negation Fallacy – the strategy of undermining any study, proponent, media byte, article, construct, data, observation, effort or idea which does not fit one’s favored model, in a surreptitious effort to promote that favored model, along with its implicit but not acknowledged underpinning claims, without tendering the appearance of doing so; nor undertaking the risk of exposing that favored model or claims set to the scientific method or to risky critical scrutiny.

Truzzi Fallacy – the presumption that a position of skepticism or plausible conformance on a specific issue affords the skeptical apologist tacit exemption from having to provide authoritative outsider recitation or evidence to support a contended claim or counter-claim.

Fact Ambiguity Dipole – the relation of a fact which carries along with it, usually through equivocation or semantics jousting, a false and misleadingly impugning implication which supports a point wishing to be made by a skeptic.

Denial/Dissent Blurring – denial obfuscation efforts by a SSkeptic being falsely passed off as informed dissent on their part. Conversely, spinning dissenters or those with opposing data as persons who are “Deniers.”

Incomplete Comparison – in which insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison of arguments between a disproved one, and a disfavored one an opponent is attempting to debunk.

Invalid Comparison – in which equivocating, inconsistent or errant information is provided to attempt a complete comparison of arguments between a disproved one, and a disfavored one an opponent is attempting to debunk.

Intentionality Fallacy – the insistence that the ultimate meaning of a construct, idea or ideology must be consistent with the intention of the person from whom the original idea, concept or communication originated; and that no new or empirically improved version of its understanding may be tested.

Proof by Assertion – a proposition is reworded in a politically correct, jingo-ish, SSkeptic one-liner, or false professional way such as to hope that its re-expression will validate it, despite previous contradiction.

Appeal to Ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent’s argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.

Straw Man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. Any man can be made to appear irrational and vile, if only we are allowed to speak on his behalf.

Normalcy Bias – the refusal to plan for, consider, or react to, a dramatic exception event or idea which has never happened or been considered before.

Rhyme as Reason Effect – rhyming statements are perceived as more truthful.

Subadditivity Effect – the tendency to judge probability of a broader argument to be less than the probabilities of the components of that same argument.

Risk Flippance – the tendency to judge the total risk of a series of transactional events to be equivalent to the risk identified for only one single event in the series.

Misrepresentation by Assumption

fallacy assumptionBegging the Question – falsely setting the starting point of an argument, or its foundational assumptions, such that the promoted conclusion is assumed as an inherent element or inevitable outcome of this starting position or set of assumptions.

Circular Cynicism – the practice of ensuring that a subject never possesses any valid scientific evidence through the fallacious step of declaring it to be a pseudoscience before investigation is ever undertaken by science.  Since the subject is a pseudoscience, all research by laymen can never be accepted as evidence, and since there is no evidence, then the subject is false and science should not study it, and since science will not study it and people research it with lay attempts at science, then it is a pseudoscience.

Bifurcation Fallacy – committed when a false dichotomy is presented, i.e. when someone is asked to choose between two options when there is at least one other option available.

Sponsorship Fallacy – the rejection of an entire methodological basis of a scientific argument and all its underpinning data and experimental history simply because one can point to a bad personality involved in the subject, hoaxes, old misconceptions about the subject or an errant conclusion which was drawn from the discipline, irrespective of the actual validity of its core scientific data and argument.

Bunk Nauseam Fallacy – the argument that a point is invalid by implying or citing incorrectly that the topic has been de-bunked many many times, and is now nothing but an irritating myth inside circles of stupidity.

Furtivis Miraculo Fallacy – give us one free miracle, and we’ll explain all the rest. The scientific pretense of condensing all the magic involved in one’s epistemology into one single comprehensively explanatory miracle.  Based on the philosophical premise that one comprising ridiculous assumption is more believable than a myriad of such assumptions.

Ad Nauseam Fallacy – the intolerance of an argument or a set of data through implying that it has been hashed and re-hashed over and over so much by science or sponsors, that everyone is tired of the subject and if there were anything true to it, it would have come out and been published already.

Appeal to Skepticism Fallacy – the argument assumption or implication that an opinion possesses authoritative veracity or a proponent possesses intellectual high ground simply through allegiance to a consensus skeptical position on a topic.

Argument from Ignorance – asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false.

Appeal to Scientific Democracy – the contention that if the majority of scientists believe something to be true, regardless of epistemological merit, then it must be assumed as true.

Argumentum Ad Populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.

Argument from Fallacy – the false assumption that the simple act of catching an opponent in commission of a logical fallacy immediately invalidates all of their ideas, observations and data.

Denying the Antecedent – the contention that since a subject is a pseudoscience, then any of its constructs, theories, results, data and observations are invalid and anyone who considers them is a pseudo scientist.

Penultimate Set Fallacy – the contention or implication on the part of a proponent of an idea that they personally hold enough validated conclusion base or data to assume that the gaps in their knowledge will have little or no effect on the veracity of their further conclusions; and therefore they should not be brought into question. The implicit claim being that the proponent holds a ‘next to the last thing knowable’ domain of knowledge on the topic in question. The ‘God of the Gaps’ one liner is typically employed as an apologetic by this false claimant to authority.

Dead Body Contraposition Fallacy – the contention that if there exists an element A, then there would be B observations which would result directly from the presence of A, for instance an animal A would result in a dead body, B.  Therefore the absence of observation of B means that A does not therefore exist.

Argument from Incredulity – the contention that because something is too difficult to imagine or possibly exist, then this is proof that it does not exist.

Pork-Barreling/Blurring – the practice of shifting the context of an accepted tenet of science or broadening the definitions involved in the principle, in order to appear to imply that science includes proof of additional ideas personally or religiously favored by the SSkeptic.  Blurring – to the converse, using the same tactics with opposing viewpoints to imply that science has condemned or disproved them; when in fact no such event has occurred.

Retrospective Causality – the argument that because some event has occurred, its occurrence must have been caused by a conforming plausible impetus, such as hype and hysteria, and not any other influence.

Naturalist’s Fallacy – wherein judgment is based solely on whether the subject of judgment fits one person’s a priori definition of what constitutes a ‘natural’ or ‘paranormal’ delineation.

Antiquing Fallacy – the dismissal of an entire field of data by showing its false, hoax based or dubious past inside a set of well known anecdotal cases. Also the instance where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held.

Mischaracterization of Groups (of People)

fallacy groupsLie of Allegiance – committed when a proponent of a specific side in a false dilemma argument misrepresents their membership group as holding one socially acceptable or attractive philosophy in name, yet that group in reality teaches/practices another less acceptable or extremist philosophy altogether.

Ergo Sum Veritas Fallacy – the assumption, implication or inference that an organization bearing a form of title regarding skepticism, is exempt from defamation laws or immediately holds de facto unquestionable factual or ideological credibility over any other entity having conducted an equivalent level of research into a matter at hand. The assumption, implication or inference that an organization or individual bearing a form of title regarding skepticism, adheres to a higher level of professionalism, ethics or morality than does the general population.

Fallacy of Exclusive Premises – there are believers and disbelievers, and some believers are gullible. Therefore no disbelievers are gullible.

Illicit Major Fallacy – all researchers of pseudoscience are irrational. No scientists study pseudoscience. Therefore, all the positions of scientists on pseudoscience are rational positions.

Illicit Minor Fallacy – all skeptics are rational thinkers. All scientists are rational thinkers. Therefore, all scientists are skeptics.

Astroturfing – the attempt to create an illusion of widespread grassroots support for a policy, viewpoint, or product, where little such support in reality exists. Multiple online identities coordinate around celebrity siren calls, manufactured data, fake-hoax counter propaganda and shill pressure groups; all employed to mislead the public into believing that the position of the astroturfer is a socially acceptable, rational reality and/or a commonly held view.

Latet Misandry – the errant employment of positions of skepticism or channels of skeptical media to promote ideas or ‘scientific’ evidence supporting the denigration of males or men.

Fallacy of Composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.

Inflation of Conflict – disagreement in a field of knowledge legitimizes an opponents’ assumption of the invalidity of that entire field.

Fallacy of Ludic Dismissal – the contention that the change in statistics with regard to upswing in the belief in a disdained topic can unequivocally be shown to be an effect of media, hype hysteria and promotional campaigns by pseudo scientists.

Reciprocating Effect – cause and effect are reversed, then reversed again, over and over in a chicken and egg relationship. The effector hysteria around an observation is said to be the cause of it, and then vice versa, ad infinitum. It assumes no validity to the basic genesis of the argument.

Hasty Generalization - basing a broad conclusion about a group on rumor, stereotype, a small sample set or scant observational experience.

Appeal to Fear – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side or group of people who support a disdained idea.

Appeal to Pity/Poverty/Morality (argumentum ad misericordiam) – an argument which attempts to cite the poverty level or objective refusal to seek money on the part of academics and Social Skeptics, as a way of assigning them unmerited objectivity inside a topic of pluralistic contention.

Appeal to Spite – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people’s bitterness, spite or political orientation regarding an opposing party; or implication that certain politically disdained groups adhere universally to specific set of beliefs.

Cheerleader Effect – the exploitation of the tendency for people or ideas to appear more attractive in a proactive group than in isolation.

Hostile Media Channel Effect – the tendency to see a media report or specific network as being biased and purveying only pseudoscience, owing to one’s own strong partisan views.

Just World Bias – the tendency for SSkeptics to want to believe that the world is fundamentally just and rational, causing them to rationalize an otherwise unconscionable injustice as deserved by the victim(s) for their being irrational.

Negativity Bias – psychological phenomenon by which humans have a greater recall of unpleasant memories associated with a disliked organization or concept, compared with positive memories of the same.

Group Attribution Error – the biased belief that the characteristics of an individual group member are reflective of the group as a whole or the tendency to assume that group decision outcomes reflect the preferences of group members, even when information is available that clearly suggests otherwise.

Ingroup Bias – the tendency for people to give preferential treatment to others, or the ideas of others they perceive to be members of their own groups.

Outgroup Homogeneity Bias – individuals see members of their own group as being relatively more varied than members of other groups.

Universal Attribution Error – in this error a person is likely to make an internal attribution to an entire group instead of the individuals or disparate factions within the group.

Hindsight Bias – the inclination to see past events or actions by people or groups as being more predictable than they actually were; also called the “I-knew-it-all-along” effect.

Pseudo Straw Man – a claim in visible forums and media that a group which an opponent dislikes, has contended certain points, ideas or explanatory theories, which are of patently ludicrous viability; when in fact no such theories have been proposed by the disliked group, and moreover that the only broaching of such a construct, theory or idea originates solely from the opponent group itself.

Misrepresentation of Self (Appeal to Skepticism)

fallacy selfLie of Allegiance – committed when a proponent of a specific side in a false dilemma argument misrepresents themselves as holding one socially acceptable or attractive philosophy in name, yet teaches/practices another less acceptable or extremist philosophy altogether.

Ergo Sum Veritas Fallacy – the contention, implication or inference that one’s own ideas or the ideas of others hold authoritative veracity simply because their proponent has declared themselves to be a ‘skeptic.’

Appeal to Skepticism Fallacy – the presumption or contention that taking a denial based or default dubious stance on a set of evidence or topic is somehow indicative of application of the scientific method on one’s part, or constitutes a position of superior intellect, or represents a superior critical or rational position on a topic at hand.

Argument from Self-Knowing – if P were true or false then I would know it as a skeptic; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true or false.

Cryptical Thinking Fallacy – the false claim by SSkeptics that they practice scientific or critical investigatory method within a topic of discourse. False skeptics advertise this as a honed skill which affords their opinions equal weight with a scientist, or superior credibility over any layman, on any particular topic they wish to dominate and condemn.

Latet Misandry – the errant employment of positions of skepticism or channels of skeptical media to promote ideas or ‘scientific’ evidence supporting the hatred of males or men. To conceal a hatred of males behind a pretense of rational thinking or science.

Stooge Posing – attacks on piece of data or an easily disprovable topic of credulity used as an effort to bolster an opponent’s record of debunking success and club ranking. This reputation to then further allow for irrelevant and unmerited gravitas in addressing other arguments where data and observation do not support the goals of the opponent.

Argument from Silence – the pretense that the exhibiting of silence on one’s part is somehow indicative of higher intellect, ethics, rationality or knowledge and skill regarding a topic at hand.

SSkepticism Projection Fallacy – when one fails to apply skepticism, and default considers the way the Social Skepticism movement sees the world as the way the world really is.

Skeptical Psychologist’s Fallacy – an opponent presupposes the objectivity of his own Skeptical position when analyzing a behavioral event on the part of others.

Bias Blind Spot – the tendency to see oneself as less biased than other people, or to be able to identify more cognitive biases and faults in others than in oneself.

Choice Supportive Bias – the tendency to remember one’s choices and professional judgement as more educated or accurate than they actually were.

Fictus Scientia Fallacy – the furtive presumption that one possesses the status, education, experience, intellect, professional background, critical thinking skills, empirical evidence or rational basis from which to speak in lieu or on behalf of science or representing proper execution of the scientific method.

Google Goggles – warped or blinded perception of self status cultivated through the ease of promotion of false information on the web. Vulnerability of self perception where every street doubter perceives and promotes them self as an authority on science. (See Margold’s Law on the friendly reception given by the Cabal to this crooked thinking)

Curse of Knowledge Effect – when better-informed people find it extremely difficult to think about problems from the perspective of lesser-informed people; or perceive that their burden of knowledge cannot be fathomed by lesser-capable people, rendering them unable to practice critical or evidence based thinking.

Empathy Gap – the tendency to underestimate the influence or strength of feelings, in either oneself and over-estimate it in others.

Illusion of Validity – belief that furtherly acquired information or promulgated policy generates additional relevant data for predictions or information to bolster a position, even when it in reality does not.

Moral Credential Effect – the tendency of a track record of non-prejudice to increase subsequent prejudice.

Social Desirability Bias – the tendency to over-report socially desirable characteristics or behaviors in one self and under-report socially undesirable characteristics or behaviors.

Dunning-Kruger Effect – an effect in which incompetent people fail to realize they are incompetent because they lack the skill or maturity to distinguish between competence and incompetence.

False Consensus Effect – the tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree with them.

Illusion of Asymmetric Insight – people perceive their knowledge of their competitors to surpass their competitors’ knowledge of them.

Illusion of Superiority – overestimating one’s desirable qualities, and underestimating undesirable qualities, relative to other people.

Naive Cynicism – expecting more egocentric bias in others than in oneself.

Naive Realism – the belief that we see reality as it really is – objectively and without bias; that the facts are plain for all to see; that rational people will agree with us; and that those who don’t are either uninformed, lazy, irrational, or biased.

Trait Ascription Bias – the tendency for people to view themselves as relatively variable in terms of personality, behavior, and mood while viewing others as much more predictable.

Critical Blindness – the conflation of a position of authority or influence with one’s possession of a higher level of personal competence. The mental obstacle created in a person granted entitled authority before they are emotionally ready, wherein they lose their ability to create, to gracefully understand or value the dynamics of human nature, motivation and leadership; descending further into shallow and habitual negative or doubtful critical assessments of those ‘under’ or different from them, coupled with an ever growing hunger for absolute control.

Misrepresentation of Authorities

fallacy authoritySemantics Jousting – the twisting of the context inside which a quotation of authority or a recitation or scientific principle is applied, such that it appears to support a separate argument and inappropriately promote a desired specific outcome.

False Appeal to Authority – the contention that the opinions of an authority contradict, appear to countermand, or reject the data, topic or ideas of an opponent when in fact either the recitation or the ideas of the opponent or both are taken out of context, misquoted or are false in their portrayal.

Appeal to Celebrity Skeptic – the recitation of opinions tendered by a celebrity or prominent figure inside skepticism, as constituting authority inside a set of data; or contention that such ideas, one-liners and figures in fact constitute positions or persons of scientific gravitas. The ranking of the opinions of such figures above those of lay or professional experts in a given field.

Construct Laundering – a proposal of Plausible Deniability on the part of one prominent SSkeptic regarding a pluralistic topic, which is subsequently then cited as a peer reference by others inside the Cabal as ‘evidence of falsification’ and finally taken as peer reviewed proof that a topic or construct has been ‘debunked’ by experts in the community at large; when no such falsification has indeed been achieved or attempted.

Kuhn Denialism – the pseudoscience of social and media bullying with the ultimate goal of controlling exposure to and blocking Science’s consideration of a condition of plurality or new paradigm or its supporting data on a given disliked subject.

False Attribution – an proponent appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.

Quoting out of Context Fallacy – a proponent’s selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning, in order to impugn or support specific ideas.

False Authority – using a persona who’s only expertise on a topic is that they have declared themselves to be a skeptic, or an expert of dubious credentials and/or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea.

Referential Reification Fallacy – assuming all words refer to existing and mature elements of science, and that the meaning of words are implicitly qualified within the things they refer to; then further presupposing that this referential definition employed then is also mature enough to be employed to discredit a contended set of observations or ideas.

Appeal to Accomplishment – where a position of opposition is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer, and not their merits or accomplishments inside the field in question.

Dunning-Kruger Exploitation – the manipulation of unconsciously incompetent persons or laypersons into believing that a source of authority expresses certain opinions, when in fact the persons can neither understand the principles underpinning the opinions, nor critically address the recitation of authority imposed upon them.

Halo Effect – the tendency for a person’s positive or negative traits to “spill over” from one personality area to another in others’ perceptions of them.

Parem Falsum – the presumption or contention that since a person is a scientist or speaks as an authority on science, they are more qualified to make conclusions and tender opinions in fields of expertise they do not hold, and moreover be regarded as authority over actual experts (both scientists and lay persons) in that field of expertise.

Reach Around – an award or accolade given within clubs of particular thinking, to other members of the same club for ‘celebrating a visible and championing club member’ in order to increase the club member’s viability as an authority; in contrast to an accolades tendered for a lifelong pursuit of work on behalf of mankind, or in development of mercy, infrastructures, economies or new technologies.

Where’s my Check Fallacy – the pretense on the part of an individual who is a Social or Celebrity Skeptic, or use skepticism to promote themselves in their institution or career, that they do not receive compensation for their speeches and visible positions on public matters, nor take payment from those who regularly seek to promote specific business, social and political goals and doctrines via well established channels of Social Skepticism.

Circus Partis – a false appeal to an authority who is simply ‘famous for being famous,’ or who is simply enjoying their 15 minutes of fame in the club, and do not stand as a credible authority independent of this pseudo-status.

Google Goggles – warped or blinded perception of an individual’s credibility based on web search popularity or false celebrity. Vulnerability to web opinions where every street doubter is an authority on science and every Cabal member and celebrity is falsely lauded.

TES Signature


¹ Most of these fallacies are principles crafted of my own observation (see Definitions in the blog and the over 100 blog entries outlining the illicit practices of thought control on the part of Social Skepticism). However many as well are adaptations of well known fallacies. Some as well are corrected from the colloquial or erroneous state into accurate, technically written or context precise form, in as brief a fashion as possible, from their Wikipedia version and the following resource sites therein:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_and_Crooked_Thinking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases

² Note that in many instances, the employment of the term ‘fallacy’ is used neither in formal nor informal technical context. In those instances, its employment is simply used to elicit the errant nature inside a short descriptive title.

September 7, 2014 Posted by | Argument Fallacies, Ethical Skepticism | , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Why Atheism is Not a Religion

The accusation is cast inside social discourse almost continually: atheism is a religion. Retorts arguing that atheism is not a religion generally range from citing its rejection of any deity, to the defense that atheists do not hold beliefs, rather are only adhering to the teachings of science. Well as ethical a choice as the objection to a personified deity might be, it in no way can be claimed to have been made based on science. Science has no definition for god, so it cannot comment in advisement of the atheist. Further, by no means does the absence of veneration of a deity, remove a belief from holding the status of a religion. Nonetheless, atheists are correct in that their belief of choice is not a religion, for three specific reasons. In the dark deep angry and plotting corridors of Nihilism however, there resides another story completely. Atheism is to Nihilism as Charity is to Christianity.

Atheism NihilismAtheism is not a religion for three specific reasons. Reasons which stand as the litmus test of what qualifies a personally adopted philosophical ontology as constituting a religion.  But before we review the rationale as to why atheism is not a religion, first let’s take a look at why Abrahamism indeed stands as the quintessential example of a religion, and probably the worst religion to have ever been introduced onto the planet. The reasons why this 3500 year old movement is an oppressive religion have nothing to do with its veneration of a ‘god.’ This is a red herring argument, the whole concept of this undefined element called god. Don’t focus on epistemological validity of my argument, focus instead on the grand loving old man in the sky. I mean who can reject a simile to their grandparents after all? The concept of god is simply a meme, an artifice employed to distract and motivate good men to ill deeds, analogous to how a Nihilist might invoke an extrapolation of science in an invalid fashion, in order to justify their actions. Three elements of practice render Abrahamism an oppressive religion.

1. Abrahamism is addressable by falsification tests.

2. Abrahamism has sought for millennia to control and block science which it did not accept, or which could ostensibly falsify its tenets.

3. Should one not accede to the correct choice presented inside the false dilemma offered by an Abrahamic religion, one is fully unacceptable for entry into humanity’s destined reward, Heaven.

These are the oppressive elements which qualify a religion.

Religion: The compulsory adherence to an idea around which testing for falsification is prohibited.

Now regarding atheism, none of its tenets bear qualification traits analogous to those listed above for Abrahamism. Regarding atheism,

1.  One cannot falsify the presumption that there are no such things as gods. Even if one were to possess an ultimately fast spaceship and sufficient amount of time and lifespan; and went forth and found a character in the universe which matched the deity described in holy writ, this begs the question, is that a god? No. Science has no definition for the term god, so no matter what entity you coaxed into traveling back with you on the spaceship, they would more than likely not be a god.

2.  Atheism as a choice, takes no position on research.  It does not seek to block science, change definitions, manipulate academics and the media, or change the nature and ethic of the scientific method in order to protect itself from potential falsification. Atheism is a simple choice of ethic. One does not believe in deities. The ignostic might bristle at the boast of presuming a definition of the term god on everyone’s behalf – and then choosing not to believe in that defined entity. Even though to the ignostic, this seems like a bit of a cheat, nonetheless he will still sympathize with the atheist.

3.  Finally, atheism is a free choice.  It may object when children are forced to accede to Abrahamism, but it generally does not seek to intimidate legislatures or children into becoming atheists, and it is not mandatory before one can be deemed acceptable in any particular club, elite society or circle. One can even join an atheist organization, and not even be an atheist. Atheism is a personal choice, to not believe in deities. That is it.

As you can see in the graphic above, atheism, the ethical rejection of the idea of a deity, in no way bears the traits and elements of a religion. Atheism however, only deliberates the issue of whether or not to venerate or believe in the existence of deities. Now again, set aside the issue that science holds no definition of the terms deity or god, and focus now on the realistic application of atheism.

Most Social Skeptics and people who call themselves “atheists,” while technically indeed being atheists, are in fact believers of Nihilism. Nihilism, not atheism, is the cult and religious doctrine enforcing absolute knowledge as to those things which are deemed ‘natural;’ moreover that nothing exists outside the materials, energies, life forms, features and principles comprised inside a pre-approved realm of understanding. Nihilism is the religion of choice of those who would seek to enact specific social, belief, and egalitarian goals in the name of science.  Goals which tender their group mandatory power, through the unification of science as government, and is characterized by the planned lack of your participation therein.

Atheism is to Nihilism as Charity is to Christianity.

Atheism is therefore, the Lie of Allegiance of the Nihilist; the attractive cover philosophy which draws the unsuspecting in, before forcing them into the deeper, angrier and more control oriented aspect of the religious doctrine set, in order to obtain acceptability.

Now lets place Nihilism into that same crucible by which we just now condemned Abrahamism and exonerated atheism, in terms of their status as potential religions. Regarding Nihilism:

1.  Nihilism can be tested for falsification. Only one confirmed extant alternative intelligent life form or medium of information transfer is required.  Just one.

2.  Nihilists vehemently seek to block subjects in falsification group 1. above from being afforded access to the scientific method or gaining attention in peer review.  This is their number one priority, as demonstrated through deed, media, intimidation, propaganda and very infrequent but highly visible and controlled predictive studies.

3.  Nihilsm is forced on children, the media and post graduate candidates. It is mandatory as a belief before one can be published, accepted into academia, or regarded as a media science reporter or peer review expert. It is enforced by angry acolytes and intimidating celebrities with a media hammer. Journals will refuse to provide peer review for your paper; you will be mocked in media and raked over the coals by pseudo-intellectual priests in their channels of push propaganda.

This is a religion, plain and simple. An oppressive one at that, every bit as bad as Abrahamism. Social Skeptics know this, and that is why they must masquerade as atheists, so as to not appear to be a religion.

Very much in the precedent set by its forerunner, Abrahamism, the proponents of Nihilism saw the advantage in keeping control of those who are allowed admittance into science. Most universities at one time were sponsored financially, and controlled by major Western church denominations. Now these institutions are controlled by the new religion of Nihilism. A control which is so angry and oppressive, that if we ever do, or have ever to date, falsified their religion under tenet 1. above, we will never hear about it.

At the least Christians will for the most part bear the ethical honesty to say “I am a Christian who practices Charity,” and not in actuality secretly teach Christianity, but only advertise themselves as social workers. For the most part this does not happen, except in countries where it is quasi-illegal to be a Christian. Yet Nihilists practice Nihilism, and habitually mis-identify themselves as atheists.  This is why an Ethical Skeptic is very wary of those who profess to be atheists, yet surreptitiously act as Nihilists. If you cannot be honest with yourself, first, then in no way will you be honest with other people. And by Margold’s Law, the deception you employ to protect your religion in one discipline, you will employ in all disciplines.

TES Signature

August 18, 2014 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism, Institutional Mandates | , , | Leave a comment

Margold’s Law and The Ethics of Skeptics

Faithful in Small, Faithful in All

or why Social Skeptics eventually destroy their own credibility and must defensively agglomerate into an inerrant club in order to provide each other mutual validation and protection

I had a Social Skeptic recently explain to me in no uncertain terms, why famine and disease conditions exist in the world, along with his agenda laden entailed solution. I sat quietly and listened to him pass the familiar Cabal doctrine, he fully unaware that I have directed several dozen national strategies worldwide in this subject, most delivered to ministries, executive offices or heads of state; and possess 23 years of deep, expert, daily and on-ground experience.  Unfortunately there are only a small subset of disciplines in which I am considered an expert. A fake skeptic does not let this natural reality which we all face, stop them. Social Skeptics habitually profess the extraordinary claim to expertise in a large array of specific subjects; and Margold’s Law explains why. Margold’s Law is a time tested and reliable principle via which the discriminating researcher can gauge the level of trustworthiness exhibited by a real researching skeptic or noisy faking Social Skeptic. I find this tactic very useful in discerning whom and whom not to trust. Now not everything a faking skeptic contends is incorrect of course.  In fact the majority of what a Social Skeptic might contend is indeed scientifically correct. But what the discriminating Ethical Skeptic observer must keep in mind, is that many times the ‘correct’ aspects of a Social Skeptic’s behavior are simply portrayed in an effort to gain credibility, so that the lack of integrity they apply below the threshold of normal perception can further be wielded more importantly and surreptitiously inside higher priority targeted subjects.

Margolds Law pic

Many Social Skeptics are not really that concerned about homeopathy, CAM medicine, Anthropogenic Global Warming or promoting science (see Stooge Posing). All which stand as valid issues of science and medicine. To a Social Skeptic, these issues stand as Lies of Allegiance, a platform point to which they must adhere, along with all the other doctrines of Social Skepticism, in order to gain the protection of the Cabal (see Margold Multiplier Counters 5a 1 & 2, b and c, below). You will notice this in blogs, wherein one prominent celebrity Social Skeptic will publish a defamatory article, then the next day a flurry of 20 or more similar sycophant SSkeptic blogs will essentially say the exact same thing as the celebrity did the day before. Really? All that research and skepticism executed in one whole day? Impressive. So in reality, one can rely upon Margold’s Law because, the incentive structure inside the Counter to the Margold Multiplier forces the Social Skeptic to accept compromises in integrity, in order to gain the protection and backing of the Cabal. In other words, the Social Skepticism movement is no different than a street gang.

Most of the time, Margold’s Law will become manifest when a SSkeptic makes rash proclamations inside subjects where no real data is possessed and no real research has been conducted on the part of the challenging claimant SSkeptic. This constitutes an action set which is readily apparent to real experts inside those subjects in which a SSkeptic pretends to be competent; wherein I have observed these fakers in my subset of professional disciplines frequently. Social Skeptics will attempt to portray a key principle inside my discipline, and purposely malign it in order to support a broader platform of ideas and control.  Most people will not catch this sleight-of–hand, but experts do. The Margold Multiplier essentially cites that this expert observer effect will be replicated over and over, eventually resulting in the destruction of the credibility of the faking SSkeptic. The faking skeptic knows this, and therefore must seek protection and provide a counter.

Hence the Genesis of Social Skepticism

gollum skepticsThis reality then further compels the faking skeptic to join the Social Skepticism movement in a defensive effort to salvage and maintain their credibility (see 5. The Margold Multiplier, below). All this stems in essence from, simultaneously an intellectually lazy boast as well as a compliance reaction from their fear of attack by their own Social Skepticism Cabal. The final state of this type of Gollum-Skeptic styled character involves the habitual circumvention of the conventions of evidence, blocking of the methods of science and attempts to establish immediate unjustified credibility on the part of an arguer who must now, because of Margold’s Law, win at all costs and at all times (see Guild Accretion Counter 5a 2 ii). My precious!

Margold’s Law

The observed level of integrity which a fake skeptic applies regarding one subject in which an external observer is an expert, will extrapolate reliably to constitute the level of integrity the fake skeptic applies in all subjects the fake skeptic debunks.

Corollaries

1.  The Margold Multiplier Guild Accretion Counter 5a 2. ensures that Margold’s Law is correct.

2.  A skeptic who claims that their comprehensive expertise on all subjects comes from an aggregation of knowledge from multiple experts in a variety of fields, is lying.

3.  If a skeptic is convicted in a felony, then lies about it to excuse it or explain it away as a big misunderstanding, then this behavior is reliably indicative of the level of integrity applied to all subjects they debunk.

4.  A faking skeptic who is caught in, or catches their own self in a Margold’s Law deception, will make visible and demonstrative fealty to truth and doctrines of correctness, as a means of compensation for their resulting inner doubt.

The Margold Multiplier

5.  Eventually a fake skeptic will demonstrate their integrity to a sufficient number of true experts across all the fields they debunk, which will serve as an amplifying effect in terms of destruction of credibility; forcing the faking skeptic to retreat into social skeptic clubs and circles and rely upon their status as a ‘skeptic’ in order to re-establish a credible reputation.

The Margold Multiplier Counters

Guild Accretion Counter

5a 1.  The first counter to the Margold Multiplier is for the faking skeptic to bolster his position by demonstrative backing with other fake skeptics, and through much noise and media intimidation regarding the unquestionable nature of skepticism, and implying their position therein.

5a 2 i.  In order to gain the protection of the Cabal of Social Skepticism, a faking skeptic must visibly and aggressively support all 200+ of the doctrinal points claimed by the Agenda of Social Skepticism, despite personally not researching the subjects themselves and/or not originally agreeing with the entailed conclusions. Any room left for doubt might risk removal or exclusion from the club cloak of protection.

5a 2 ii  Fealty to the Agenda of Social Skepticism is demonstrated by the ability to be victorious in all arguments the fake skeptics enters.

5a 3.  Corollary 4 ensures that the Guild Accretion Counter 5a 2 i. is correct.

Truzzi Counter

5b.   The second counter to the Margold Multiplier is the Truzzi Counter:  The presumption that a position of skepticism or plausible conformance on a specific issue affords the skeptical apologist tacit exemption from having to provide authoritative outsider recitation, ethical conduct or evidence to support a contended claim or counter-claim.

Truzzi Apology Counter

5c.  The third and conditional counter to the Margold Multiplier is the Truzzi Apology:  The presumption that a position of skepticism, the word ‘science’ included in an organizational title or a plausible conformance on a specific issue affords the skeptical apologist tacit permission to conduct highly visible slander, libel, employer or business tampering, defamation and derision, along with other dark and illegal conduct.

Pseudo-Skeptics: Critics who assert negative claims, but who mistakenly call themselves ‘skeptics,’ often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on them at all. A result of this is that many critics seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence.”  – Marcello Truzzi (Founding Co-chairman of CSICOP)

TES Signature

August 17, 2014 Posted by | Argument Fallacies, Deskeption | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How to Spot a Fake Skeptic

Skepticism is a discipline of preparing the mind and observation sets in order to perform science; it is not an artifice to be used as a substitution acting in lieu of science. It does not tender conclusions, as only science can do that. Nor does skepticism serve as a justification of one’s personal ontological beliefs and politics. It does not afford the practitioner a claim of representing science or the opinion of scientists.
skeptical of skepticsThe more I read through the blogs and substantive descriptions of skepticism published by prominent Social Skeptics, the more I gain a keen understanding that, these attention seekers really have no idea what skepticism is at all. Below is simply a short tally of my disgust after reading through about a dozen published false understandings of what constitutes skepticism, promoted by people who hold no technical or scientific advanced degrees yet insist on speaking on behalf of science. Unfortunate persona who have been mentored by dishonest, agenda laden professional cynics. Trust me, most of these high visibility “skeptics” have no idea as to what constitutes true scientific skepticism. Some of the actual scientists who are included in this group apparently did not have a rigorous philosophical core to their postgraduate work.
Social Skeptics habitually fail to understand that science remains mute on topics inside of which the scientific method has not been rigorously applied; regardless of the reason why it has not been applied. Instead of this essence of the Greek Pyrrhonistic application of the Epoché, the essential and ethical core of professional scientific thinking, the fake skeptic falls prey to their own mental deceptions and religious mindset.  They attempt to establish a smug plateau of veracity upon which they perch and enforce their favored arguments on others.
It never fails to amaze me how people can feel they are ‘oh so smart’ and rational, and yet not see when they are being used as a pawn to accomplish corporate, political or social ends. 

This is fake pawn skepticism. A checklist one can employ to spot a fake skeptic:

  • If you think that skepticism “is a process of evaluating claims” …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you proselytize children with your version of ‘critical thinking:’ one heavy with conclusions …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you do not understand the statement ‘Epoché vanguards Gnosis’ …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you speak about “Occam’s Razor” promoting the simplest explanation …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you cannot quote Ockham’s Razor, explain concisely what it means and give an example …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you insist on garnering media spotlight to shed the light of dismissive conclusion into a valid conflict of evidence … then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you behave like a groupie and travel in gaggles of fandom for celebrity skeptics or science spokespersons …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you behave like a ‘paparazzi of science’ obsessing over and doing dirty work attacking those you see as the enemy …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you think that nominating a single hypothesis and then conducting predictive studies which support it, is the scientific method …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you demand ‘proof’ before you will consider or research an idea, then publicly discredit the idea because there is no ‘proof’ …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you have never made an investigative trip into the field to see first hand …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you have spent 90+% of your time in your home country or state …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you have never sat with African villagers at evening prayer, worked alongside followers of Ganesha in India, or held a person in your arms as they died …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you do not understand the difference between skepticism’s being used as a tool inside of science, and its being employed in lieu of science …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you believe that science has proven why Republicans, or conservatives or Fox News are an assemblage of morons …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you think that ‘critical thinking’ involves applying your current knowledge to dismiss challenging first hand observations by others …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you think that every first hand observation is a “claim” and don’t understand the difference …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you think that capitalism is evil, and tout the wonders of academic socialism …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you must pepper your discourse with technical terms from disciplines other than your own, in an effort to show that you are a smart ‘scientist’ …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you find joy in bashing Christians or Islamics or obsess over Jesus believers …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If your ‘skeptic’ insights bear a habit of pointing out how evil men are or how stupid mothers or women are …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you do not understand the difference between predictive studies and falsification testing …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you tout a study as evidence for a position and have not read its Abstract and Methodology …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you are quick to claim that your opinion reflects the consensus opinion of science …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you contend that all your beliefs are underpinned by systematic observations and reason …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you believe that a conclusion must be reached at the end of a skeptical process …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you fail to regularly employ the principle of a construct, and instead habitually promote everything to the state of ‘hypothesis’ …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you habitually grant your favored conclusions, which cannot be addressed by falsification testing, the default status as the Null Hypothesis …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you think that only Atheism and God based religions are the two choices offered us all …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you think that Atheism means a complete rejection of alternative life or realms or spirituality …then you are neither an atheist nor a skeptic.
  • If you immediately ‘doubt’ every first hand observation which you hear or read, which does not fit your preferred model …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you think that your preferred model is the same one carried by the consensus majority of scientists …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you think that you understand most every subject well enough to identify what question should be asked first …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you apply skepticism to subjects such as music, art and literature …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you term anything which contradicts your natural model ‘supernatural’ …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you must always force a conclusion to observations which adheres to only your ‘natural’ explanation …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you think that all memory is fallible and do not differentiate observations by the 6 types of memory …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you have never caught yourself in a logical fallacy …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you think that evolution is random …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you deny global warming or believe science is wrong and the Earth is 6,000 years old …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you think that observations of events, even from trustworthy people, make for very poor evidence on their own, and you refuse to aggregate them so that they are forever on their own …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you think that the majority of doctors support all the views of Science Based Medicine or pharmaceutical or health care companies …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you think that everyone who raises a question about our food, is an evil pseudo scientist …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you cannot cohesively and quickly explain why you are not a cynic or debunker …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If the first things which come to mind, when thinking of examples of applied skepticism, are ghosts, Bigfoot or UFOs …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you think that a skeptic doubts everything, and you cannot articulate a state of suspended or mute disposition, and contrast that with doubt …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you believe that everything in Classic Greek Skepticism was ‘doubted’ …then you do not understand skepticism.
  • If you think that skepticism and atheism and humanism are essentially the same ethic …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you think that skepticism is something you can best apply from your university office, study or lab …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you often dismiss observations via the Law of Large Numbers, but cannot articulate the difference between the strong and weak variants …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you do not hold your skeptic peers accountable and rather, celebrate the camaraderie of their shared beliefs …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you think that holding a skeptic accountable for scientific malfeasance or bad behavior only stems from some anger over a debunking of a pet topic …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you think that science has an opinion on realms and ideas which cannot be tested …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you use skepticism to seek celebrity and attention under the excuse of ‘promoting science’ …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you use your skeptically based notoriety to push personal political agendas …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you conflate philosophical skepticism with scientific skepticism, in hopes that others infer that your philosophies are science based …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you point out trivial faults in a broad array of assembled observation, as a basis to refute the observations …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you believe that skepticism is something which tells you how you should think about something to get to the conclusion that has the best possibility of being true …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If every idea which is outside your favored model, is to you, a ‘belief’ held by others …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you divide the world and its observations in to the bad people and the good people …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If celebrity promotion of one side in a controversial topic or issuance of a popular one liner make you feel all warm and satisfied …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If feminism, socialism, atheism, liberalism, sexual preference rights, anti-gunism, party-ism and a host of other ‘ism’s’ are your skeptical focus, even though these may stand for good things …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you obsess over the Bible, Obama or Richard Nixon and how good versus evil it all is …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you think that the promotion of science only centers around physical science and chemistry lab experiments …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you adopt skepticism simply to resist change …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you think that a religion must venerate a god …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you think that calling yourself a ‘skeptic’ affords your opinion or politics or personal philosophy more merit …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you tout your skepticism as a way to imply to others that your opinion bears equal merit with a scientist or expert in a particular field …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you force all observers of things which make you uncomfortable to provide evidence, and accept your skeptic peer contentions at face value …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you believe that punishing or chiding or mocking people, is productive …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you go around saying ‘Burn the Bible or Koran or Constitution or Bhagavad Gita,’ even in jest …you are not a skeptic.
  • If you immediately accept Monsanto as always correct …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If anyone who does not agree with your conclusions is a purveyor of pseudoscience …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you believe that a pseudoscience is a topic …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you cannot quickly explain the act of pseudoscience, what qualifies it and cite an example …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you believe that science as social activism can determine your values, politics, economics and morality …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you contend that science has demonstrated that free will or self awareness are an illusion …then you are not a skeptic.
  • If you do not perceive the concealed religion being foisted by Richard Dawkins and James Randi …then you are not a skeptic.
The essence of skepticism in reality involves several beautiful character traits. Traits which are in no way exhibited by members of Social Skepticism. The term “skeptic” derives from a Greek noun, skepsis, which means examination, inquiry, consideration. It has very little to do with doubt, rage, personal religion, hate, proof, claims, self or idea promotions and campaigns. Skepticism is a discipline of preparing the mind and observation sets in order to perform science; it is not an artifice to be used as a substitution acting in lieu of science.
1. The ability to tolerate fear and suspended uncertainty (Epoché),
2. The ability to withhold judgement, and dispassionately consider several models at once,
3. A fairness of mind and listening, compassionate nature,
4. Intense curiosity, and ethic of gathering, not dismissing, observations, which forces one into the field to see for one’s self,
5. The backbone to not immediately accept every institutional doctrine or mandatory claim you are handed as true,
6. A joy which celebrates all the fine experiences of mankind, before following the desire to draw conclusions
7. An intolerance for narcissistic, fake, hate filled, angry, abusive, gang-mentality or negative and control oriented people.

TES Signature

August 10, 2014 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism | , , , | 1 Comment

The Appeal to Skepticism Fallacy

I doubt, therefore I am (superior)

I'm a SkepticThe taxonomy of the Appeal to Skepticism Fallacy at its heart outlays a series of genetic fallacies regarding self and contended position. As with many informal fallacies, this genetic fallacy pertains to boasts regarding argument framing and framer, rather than deductive veracity of data or material structure of the argument itself. There are four taxonomy clads comprised by The Appeal to Skepticism Fallacy, below.  The first pertains to relevancy of simple identity as a claim of merit, the second to the relevant argument position of doubt, the third pertains to flaws relating to deceptive ontology and the fourth pertains to ethic of argument method.  The last, the Truzzi Fallacy of Argument is a quasi-formal fallacy, named in honor of Marcello Truzzi, related to the cited quote.

Most of the time, an Appeal to Skepticism is employed when no real data is possessed and no real research has been conducted on the part of the challenging claimant; instances where the integrity of a prima facia counter-claim could be called into question (e.g. attempting to deny an observation made by a third party, without direct evidence).  It is in its essence, simultaneously an intellectually lazy boast, a pretense of self promotion to that status equivalent to a scientist (without the qualifications) and finally an implicit or explicit disparagement of a targeted disliked party. It is employed as a method to circumvent the conventions of evidence, block the methods of science and to attempt to establish immediate unjustified credibility on the part of an arguer who must win at all costs.

The Appeal to Skepticism Fallacy

Ergo Sum Veritas Fallacy (of Irrelevance)

1a.  The contention, implication or inference that one’s own ideas or the ideas of others hold authoritative veracity simply because their proponent has declared themselves to be a ‘skeptic.’

1b.  The assumption, implication or inference that an organization bearing a form of title regarding skepticism, is exempt from defamation laws or immediately holds de facto unquestionable factual or ideological credibility over any other entity having conducted an equivalent level of research into a matter at hand.

1c.  The assumption, implication or inference that an organization or individual bearing a form of title regarding skepticism, adheres to a higher level of professionalism, ethics or morality than does the general population.

Appeal to Skepticism Fallacy (of Irrelevance)

2a.  The declaration, assumption or implication that a consensus skeptical position on a topic is congruent with the consensus opinion of scientists on that topic.

2b.  The argument assumption or implication that an opinion possesses authoritative veracity or a proponent possesses intellectual high ground simply through allegiance to a consensus skeptical position on a topic.

3.   The presumption or contention that taking a denial based or default dubious stance on a set of evidence or topic is somehow indicative of application of the scientific method on one’s part, or constitutes a position of superior intellect, or represents a superior critical or rational position on a topic at hand.

Inverse Negation Fallacy (of Presumption)

4.   The strategy of undermining any study, proponent, media byte, article, construct, data, observation, effort or idea which does not fit one’s favored model, in a surreptitious effort to promote that favored model, along with its implicit but not acknowledged underpinning claims, without tendering the appearance of doing so; nor undertaking the risk of exposing that favored model or claims set to the scientific method or to risky critical scrutiny.

Truzzi Fallacy (of Argument)

5.   The presumption that a position of skepticism or plausible conformance on a specific issue affords the skeptical apologist tacit exemption from having to provide authoritative outsider recitation or evidence to support a contended claim or counter-claim.

Pseudo-Skeptics: Critics who assert negative claims, but who mistakenly call themselves ‘skeptics,’ often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on them at all. A result of this is that many critics seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence.”  – Marcello Truzzi (Founding Co-chairman of CSICOP)

Explanation of Two General Forms

An Appeal to Skepticism is an Irrelevant Appeal which in one of three ways, cedes control of an argument high ground artificially to the person attempting leverage by deception or means other than the evidentiary base.  Negations and Denials are control mechanisms, and in their truest sense, can be used to control the direction of science; however, when this control is ceded into individuals, it can be abused.  The Appeal to Skepticism is the implicit or explicit boast by the claimant that simply through the act of doubting, I have assumed a superior argument position, all things being equal.  This allows for a claim of default victory in undetermined pluralistic arguments, where there legitimately is no suitable basis of authority from which to declare such.  The focus by the claimant is typically on winning arguments, not in deriving clarity or value.  There are two general forms of this Fallacy of Relevancy.

Declaring Myself As A Skeptic Defaults Me Unearned and Unassailable Credibility

Whether I use my self-awarded moniker as ‘skeptic’ to attempt to drive home a political goal, or squelch a subject I dislike, or improve my standing and notoriety, self developed claims to skepticism are designed to serve exactly that: self.  Most commonly, self appointed skeptics are only skeptical about the set of data and ideas they do NOT believe, and tender their favorite subjects a coddling and shallow appearance of scientific veracity.  In similar fashion to the Texas Barn Logic Fallacy, where one shoots at the barn wall and then draws the target bullseye around the bullet holes, the faker skeptic will challenge every subject EXCEPT those which they surreptitiously are promoting.  So rather than taking the ethical pathway of developing hypothesis and methodical testing of their favored claims, the faker skeptic shoots at everything except their favored claim.  The only thing left standing, is that which they wished to promote in the first place.  This is called the Inverse Negation Fallacy approach to agenda sponsorship, and is a method of deception; and when used in this context by SSkeptics, is Deskeption.

Example

(1) Astronomer Phil Plait is a skeptic, by his own admission.
Therefore:
(2) Astronomer Phil Plait should be published as an authority on a variety of subjects aside from Astronomy, such as issues of health practices, gun control, and bigfoot.

Assuming A Position of Doubt Affords Me Immediate Rational Gravitas

It is a damaging and deceptive tactic to create un-level argument playing fields simply for the benefit of personal victory and ego.  It is fallacious to presume that taking a denial based or default dubious stance on a set of evidence or topic is somehow indicative of application of the scientific method on one’s part.  Yes science uses doubt as a lever.  But science also understands when data has produced a sufficient threshold of plurality.  SSkeptics do not grasp this, as understanding was not the goal in the first place.  Inside the notorious Climate Change denial antics, those who defended Climate Change data – were quick to disallow “Deniers” the high ground of being called ‘skeptics’, as they knew the deceptiveness wound up in this moniker tactic well.  Taking a position of denial or cynicism does not guarantee one a position of superior intellectual approach, nor does it represent a superior rational position on a topic at hand.  As with most arguments, the mere presence of plurality, the fact that science has not yet definitively answered or addressed the question, means that ‘doubt’ can unethically be used as a battering ram, just as easily as it can be used to enforce an ethical falsification hierarchy under the scientific method.

Example

(1) Evidence has been purportedly gathered that ulcers are caused by a bacterium, helicopter pylori.  I am in an association which represents antacid manufacturer interests.
Therefore:
(2) Denial of this claim as false, implies that there is a current understanding of what causes ulcers, which has evidence, and will tender our stalling the appearance of being a legitimate facet of ethical science.

This argument is fallacious because it only serves to aggrandize the person making the appeal to skepticism, and tenders the false appearance of science.  It suffers from the diminishing gains failure problem in that:

When the one making the Appeal to Skepticism is correct:  There is no added Value or Clarity gain (goals of Ethical Skepticism)     OUTCOME = ZERO SUM GAIN

When the one making the Appeal to Skepticism is incorrect:  Damage is done through obfuscation   OUTCOME = LOSS

This is why, on average, skepticism should be used as a technique which aids in good science.  But to take on the identity of being a skeptic, to chest-pound, dominate discourse and to begin to wield such self declaration as a political or argument position basis, causes no net benefit to mankind and science; only loss.

TES Signature

April 14, 2014 Posted by | Argument Fallacies | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Scientific Method is Not Simply The Experimental Method

Neither the Developmental Scientific Method, nor the Experimental Method are wrong necessarily.  But what those two subsets of the scientific method fail to address are several vital steps of Discovery Science Methodology.  Our regard of the scientific method as simply being a big lab experiment constitutes a logical fallacy; one which blinds and binds our professionals and emasculates our ability as a culture to address the key questions which face humanity today.

discovery science vs developSearch for the scientific method in Google and you will find an enormous amount of misinformation and conflation of the scientific method with the experimental method.  This confusion is an example of well meaning but of sophomoric guild individuals or cabals attempting to explain incorrectly, what is indeed science.  I suppose that this is how these same people might describe the method of making love:

Making Love Method:

  1. Obtain a Naked Person
  2. Examine Various Body Parts
  3. Rub Genitals Together
  4. Ask if It Was Acceptable
  5. Exchange Phone Numbers

This is not making love.  There is so much that is missing what is happening here, such as to render this process invalid, despite its apparent correctness.  This is a method which is touted by someone who has never made love.

In the same way, science is not an experiment, rather it is the process and body of knowledge development.  And as such, its applied acumen resides to the greater degree outside the lab, not in it.  Anyone who has managed a scientific research organization knows this. A team can refine an experimental insight only so many times, but if they have not asked the right question or obtained the right resources and data, then this is simply lots of activity executed by technicians masquerading as scientists.  Regarding the scientific method as simply an extended experiment, can leave it open to ineffectiveness at best, or even worse manipulation by ill-meaning forces who seek to direct the body of predictive knowledge in certain directions (see Promotification below).  Science demands that its participants be circumspect and prepared, before they pretend to be competent at testing its first questions.

Wikipedia, in similar form, defines the “Scientific Method” as below (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method).  I have called it by its more accurate name here in red:

Scientific Method:                         (Developmental Scientific Methodology)

  1. Define a question
  2. Gather information and resources (observe)
  3. Form an explanatory hypothesis
  4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
  5. Analyze the data
  6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
  7. Publish results
  8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

While this step series is generally correct and close, this actually represents really only an expansive form of the Experimental Method and focuses on Developmental Science only.  In other words, what Wikipedia and its academic authors have defined here is what one does to improve our knowledge of existing and established paradigms, in highly controlled environments, and in cases where we already know what question to ask in the above Step 1. Define a Question. This is simply a method of refining existing knowledge focused on essentially technology development.  And that is indeed a valid approach, since what are we going to do if we cannot turn our science into beneficial application?  Certainly a large part of science necessarily centers around this diligent technical incrementalism and existing paradigm development process.

But this is NOT the scientific method.  It is a PART of the scientific method, more focused and centered on specific procedure from what the authors learned in school, that of the Experimental Method (below, mostly courtesy of Colby College (http://www.colby.edu/biology/BI17x/expt_method.html).  To be fair, Wikipedia does address this issue in part of their excellent writeup on Experimental Methodology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment) and its ethical employment and limitations.

Experimental Method:                    (Look Familiar?)

  1. Ask a Question
  2. Form a Hypothesis
  3. Define a Test/Variables
  4. Perform an Experiment
  5. Analyze the Results
  6. Draw a Conclusion
  7. Report Results

But what if we do not have the necessary set of observations which could educate us to even know what question to ask in the first place?  What if by asking the question as the first step, we bias the participants or the outcome, or blind ourselves to the true experimental domain entailed? What if we were able to conduct a series of initial falsification tests in the early data sets, which would preclude an entire series of predictive tests in the classic developmental methodology later?  Moreover, what if we did not know because we collected the wrong data, all because we asked the wrong questions to begin with, or failed to learn from past mistakes made by competitors on the subject.  These confusing challenges are common to every lab in a variety of industry verticals.

But Science is About Discovery, not Simply Incremental Development of Current Paradigms

In some of my labs, in the past, when we have made major breakthroughs, or turned an eight month research program into a 3 week discovery process, we did not employ the above process as expressed by academia and Wikipedia.  We took a step back and asked three important circumspect questions which differentiate scientists from lab technicians, which occur commensurate with Discovery Scientific Methodology, Step 3 – Aggregation of Data:

Three Critical Questions Scientists Ask When They Really Want an Answer:

  1. What is it that we do not know, that we do not know?
  2. What should we test and/or statistically aggregate and analyze before we boast that we can competently ask the question?
  3. What missteps have we or our competitors made to date?

The Wikipedia Developmental Science Methodology presumes that there is only a small set (s) of the unknown, and our task is simply to fill in that (s) blank.   In discovery science this presumption of the small unknown is incorrect, as it embodies a version of the Penultimate Set Fallacy. In Discovery Science Methodology, the key is that we do not necessarily have all the information we need, and even more importantly we might not even be aware that we are not equipped to boast that we can suitably ask the right question.  Proceeding in such a disadvantageous state under the Developmental Science process would be akin to one searching for Jimmy Hoffa by starting in one’s living room. It is clear that science has woefully undersold the role of the aggregation of data (Step 3 – Intelligence/Data Aggregation (The 3 Key Questions, below). Mike Huerta is the Associate Director of the US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, USA cites that data is the weakness of science in the biomedical field. Probably the richest mine of field scientific data known to man, yet still, the weak link in the scientific method continues even there, to be the data – the first half of the Discovery Science Methodology process.

I think a lot of people haven’t thought broadly about the benefits that will come from data sharing. Once we have a comprehensive set of information about data, as we do about the scientific literature, it’ll let us start looking at the landscape of biomedical research from a different perspective. It will give us another metric for assessing science and progress and it will allow us to find data that might be useful for any of a number of scientific purposes. Now, for most biomedical research the public products are the conclusions and the interpretations about data, and those conceptual aspects are probably the most fragile part of that scientific process.

   ~ Mike Huerta, Associate Director of the US National Labrary of Medicine (http://blogs.nature.com/scientificdata/2014/08/12/data-matters-interview-with-mike-huerta/)

Without data availability, the researcher cannot even hope to ask the right question, and must simply start by acting all busy.  Well yes, you can search your living room for Jimmy Hoffa, and certainly perform developmental investigation there, but you are really only performing those activities to which you are accustomed.  You will see many a SSkeptic performing this type of ‘scientific inquiry.’  They have not looked at the broad set of data, nor have they asked the right question to begin with, sometimes purposefully; rather desiring only to tender the appearance of doing science.  Getting themselves photographed naked, and pretending that they were in the process of making love.

Two Reason to Pretend at ScienceKnowing how to ask the right question, if approached properly, can turn years of potentially misleading predictive study (Promotification) into a much shorter timeframe and more productive falsification based conclusions.  This process is neither deliberated nor executed in the lab.  Much of what is considered “pseudoscience” as a subject, suffers from this sleight-of-hand shortfall through targeting by fake SSkeptics.  By not knowing how to ask the right question, one can fall susceptible to a pseudoscience called Promotification:

Promotification – One or a series of predictive experiments touted as scientific, yet employed in such a fashion as to mislead, obfuscate or delay.  Deception or incompetence wherein only predictive testing methodology was undertaken in a hypothesis reduction hierarchy when more effective falsification pathways or current evidence were readily available, but were ignored.

arrogance1Through asking the wrong question, power is sublimed from the hands of science and into the hands of those who do not desire an answer.

When one or more of the below steps is skipped or placed in the wrong order, in a discovery science context, then this can be an indication that SSkeptical Tradecraft is underway.  It behooves the discovery science researcher to be fully cognizant and circumspect for the influences of SSkepticism in the answers he is handed.  One does not even have to manage a lab, and might be simply addressing a tough question.  If one is actually being held accountable by an external body of oversight, such as a board of directors who want results, not status-quo and protocol, then often necessity drives this as the true scientific method:

DISCOVERY SCIENCE METHODOLOGY:

1.  OBSERVATION

2.  NECESSITY

3.  INTELLIGENCE/AGGREGATION OF DATA (The Three Key Questions)

4.  CONSTRUCT FORMULATION

5.  SPONSORSHIP/PEER INPUT (Ockham’s Razor)

6.  HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

7.  PREDICTIVE TESTING

8.  COMPETITIVE HYPOTHESES FRAMING (ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTION)

9.  FALSIFICATION TESTING

10.  HYPOTHESIS MODIFICATION

11.  FALSIFICATION TESTING/REPEATABILITY

12.  THEORY FORMULATION/REFINEMENT

13.  PEER REVIEW (Community Vetting)

14.  PUBLISH

15.  ACCEPTANCE


Just as corruption produces human suffering, in similar fashion, Tradecraft SSkepticism produces cultivated ignorance

How do I know that SSkeptics fully acknowledge this process as constituting the full scientific method?  Because they skillfully and adeptly know how to manipulate the steps of this process such that specific desired outcomes and conclusions are produced.  It is a method of corruption, not unlike that which the ministers of a country might employ, through the gaming of laws, policies and bureaucracy such that they and their cronies are enriched in the process of legislation.  Just as corruption produces human suffering, in similar, Tradecraft SSkepticism produces cultivated ignorance.

PracticesThe icon on the right will act as my post signature icon, tagging the entire series of posts on Tradecraft SSkepticcism.  This tag will apply when the post is specifically depicting ways in which Social Skepticism manipulates through Tradecraft, academia, media, science, scientists and their Cabal faithful; spinning a false representation of the reality which encompasses the nature of man and our realm.  This icon will be affixed on the top right hand side of such posts. :)

SSkeptics are fully aware at how to obviate, block access to, or eliminate any or all of the above steps, as means to a specific end.  They intimidate researchers in specific embargoed subjects involved in or considering seriously any activity under Steps 1 – 7. Further then, SSkeptics pretend that they are the only ones sufficiently equipped to ask the question framed in Step 8; which constitutes an extraordinary boast.  By skipping Steps 1 – 7, SSkeptics are able to socially circumvent sound science and posit the wrong question as the first step.   Amateurs researchers rarely catch this sleight-of-hand which has been foisted on them, while the public just nods in wide eyed resignation.  Scientists who understand this know that they are to keep quiet.  This asking of the wrong question ensures a flawed execution of the scientific method such that Steps 9 – 15 never have a realistic set of hypotheses which to test.  So, SSkeptics DO understand this, the full scientific method.  All too well.

TES Signature

April 1, 2014 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism, Tradecraft SSkepticism | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ethical Skepticism

Skeptic  –  One who practices the method of suspended judgment, engages in rational and dispassionate reasoning as exemplified by the scientific method, shows willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, and who seeks out evidence and carefully scrutinizes its validity.

This definition of the makeup of a skeptic is absolutely valid.  There exists a problem however, in that a sufficiently detrimental portion of those who call themselves ‘skeptics’ teach and purposely practice a different ethic.

Epoché vanguards Gnosis.

Ethical Skepticism is a long held value on the part of those in our history who have born true brilliance in their successes inside of science, social issues, technology, government and discovery.  An Ethical Skeptic first recognizes the shortcomings of those who hold power and those of his own assumptions.  The Ethical Skeptic then sets about a methodology which neutralizes these shortcomings and approaches solving the riddles wrapped around our resulting ignorance as a culture and body scientific.  The Ethical Skeptic is not as concerned about doubting things and always being right as he is about defending a mental self discipline of epoché; followed by the establishment of clarity and value in his research. He is insatiably curious, yet obsessive in defending the integrity of the knowledge development process.  He says “Look here, at what is predictably consistent.  It may be significant.  Let’s mature it enough to test, along with its counter claims, for falsification.”  He tolerates the potential falsification of his own pursuit, despite the irony of having pursued it passionately.

The pretend SSkeptic in contrast has memorized the one-liners which explain why the scientific method is unnecessary.  The pretend SSkeptic proselytizes children and promotes themselves through celebrity and intimidation, in a vain attempt to squelch unwelcome subjects, observations or thought.  The pretend SSkeptic uses doubt like a weapon, via its selective and prejudiced application employed to promote an unacknowledged set of beliefs. The pretend SSkeptic highlights visibly and often that he is a skeptic and enforces plausible conformance claims without evidence, based on a list of disfavored subjects. He employs predictive testing supporting favored explanations, at best; and stopping there, then demands proof be the first step provided by outsiders, without the aid of science.  The pretend SSkeptic is an opportunist who leverages scientists’ lack of knowledge of sister disciplines to change the message of what scientists think, then boasts in visible media that his contentions represent the consensus opinion of scientists.

It is incumbent upon us to promote genuine skeptical thought and decry pseudo-skepticism, imperious institutional doctrines and the cultivation of ignorance.

The Ethical Skeptic (Octavus Thesauri)

  1. First and foremost finds fulfillment through disciplined pursuit of an insatiable curiosity; scrutinizing and maintaining caution around his own assumptions, regardless of where they are obtained; discriminating with discipline, ontological and religious cosmologies from actual science.
  2. Holds his skeptic peers accountable for abusive behavior, dishonesty, conflative or extrapolative pretense with actual science, epistemological broaches and appeals to false authorities.
  3. Challenges pat answers, one-liners, old truisms, social pressure mandates and institutional doctrines which surreptitiously evade scrutiny under the scientific method.
  4. Does not enforce one answer, nor consider/accuse under the basis of a ‘belief;’ rather considers new data without pre-filtering, exploring several ‘constructs’ at once, some of which may be diametrically in opposition.
  5. Acknowledges with integrity a sufficient threshold of plurality attained on a singular construct, warranting hypothesis development under the scientific method.
  6. Is not arrogant nor disdainful, nor seeks personally aggrandizing victory over others.  Rather, is self-confident enough to allow the scientific method to proceed no matter whether or not the subject threatens his own club, status, philosophies, authorship, ego, or even rational tolerance.
  7. Does not strive to disprove, but rather allows constructs to falsify themselves through accrued verity; eschewing promotion of a favored idea solely because it is promoted by peer pressure or is the conforming, predicate confirming or simplest explanation.
  8. Does not seek immediate forced proof before consideration of an idea, nor promote any enforced truth; but rather pursues
Value – as measured by achieving beneficial outcomes in their research,
Clarity – as measured by the ability to obtain common ground or understanding with opponents when possible, and
Integrity of The Epignosis – defends the integrity of the knowledge development process and denies the cultivation of ignorance.
The Epignosis - Copy 801

TES Signature

March 31, 2014 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Ethical Skeptic Statement of Faith

 Epoché vanguards Gnosis.

Ethical Skeptic Faith
Abrahamism
When enforced on me as a child, was a destructive lie which took years to shed through education, integrity, rational thinking, fellowship, a global deep life experience and a smarter circumspect view about man and our elegant universe.
Metaphysical Naturalism
When it is offered to me as the only alternative to Abrahamism, this becomes a bifurcation fallacy;
When I am told there exists enough epistemological evidence upon which to select it, this becomes a false dilemma;
When it is enforced on society, government, in my career, in the media, and in my academic progression, it becomes Nihilism;
When it is bolstered by pep rallies and through surrounding one’s self with angry like-minded fellows, it becomes every bit as abusive a religion as Abrahamism;
When it is promoted as “atheism” or “skepticism” or “free thinking”
…it becomes a lie.
My research, and my review of the research of others, has led me to conclude that both Abrahamism and Metaphysical Naturalism are false. At a certain point, the integrity of philosophy will dictate that it must yield to evidence. Those who pretend the evidence does not exist, remain lost in their own weakened minds. However, I await more true research before choosing to conclude anything further. I object when either group seeks to control the evidence, means, access, method, funding, attention, work, conclusions and visibility of all research which allows me to improve my understanding of our realm. This knowledge is neither the property nor propriety of any government or group. I object when my peers seek to enforce either religion on me, society, careers, media, social discourse, or government. When this happens, I will speak up.
We do not yet understand enough, as men, to substantiate these grandiose fatalistic claims as to the nature of our universe and our existence. Epoché vanguards Gnosis. I expect to be amazed. This is my faith.

 

TES Signature

 

September 20, 2014 Posted by | Deskeption | 4 Comments

No Promenade in the Savage Dance

5.0.2Incumbent with new awareness are the susurrations of wonder
  Lacking promenade in savage writhe, muse’s dance it remains
The rejoinder of the immature cries ‘Ne’er such a thing!’
  ‘Intimate illusions are they, ignis fatuus in all manner of fool’s folly!’
Yet whisper vexes us with duplicitous offense
  Its absurdity she bears schism, mocking our surety, erasing the proud
One of Truth, One of Myopics, both stumbling stones
  Betrayed each by canard of pompous might, or adornment of elite proxy
Nonetheless its matron cries birth screams of an unknown pang, immune to excuse
  a Siren’s Song of Hydrogen beckoning in the vast darkness; bride of all that we are to be and become: ‘Find me, young mind; even so, …find me’
Trust no longer your own eyes, should they gaze upon a tree for such a time that they can now see nothing else
  Smile warmly and step passed those who have drunk of the fruit of its intoxication
It is the heeding of the call, the humility of seeking without fear
  Only it is wonder born of such deliberate paradox and our will to find her,
…which proves we are.
 

TES Signature

August 23, 2014 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: