The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

The Celeber Cavilla Fallacy

Beware of a ‘skeptic’ who frequently employs a fallacy of categorization by means of wink wink, nudge nudge clique implication. The use of lazy and over-inflated weapon words and fad pejorative categorizations is a key indicator of methodical cynicism. The employment of the celeber cavilla fallacy is a pivotal tactic of Social Skepticism; indicative of a person wishing to enforce a political or religious agenda onto persons who are objecting to that enforcement. The ‘skeptic’ who practices this fallacy is seeking to intimidate a neutral audience and neither understands philosophy, nor practices science or ethics.

celeber cavilla fallacy - CopyYou have probably been witness to this Truzzi fallacy more than any other fallacy in the entire Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation, and you may not even know it. Social Skeptics refuse to give this fallacy a definition and description, so we at The Ethical Skeptic will. Once a person has lost their ability to assert personal conviction over social conditioning, they will fall prey to this unethical act. The celeber cavilla categorization and condemnation of individuals into descriptive pigeon holes for thinking differently does not occur through simply the framing of a category, rather in the abuse of that category without evidence or appropriate context, and in an effort to condemn and intimidate a neutral-observer audience. The blanket condemnation of a person by means of a celeber cavilla fallacy combines the worst of ad hominem, Truzzi fallacy, bucket characterization from a negative premise, associate condemnation, claim to authority and fallacy of composition. It is the employment of weapon words, catch phrases, fad quips and one-liners to act as a battering ram to enforce politics and religion upon a target population.

These phrases are crafted as a method of intimidating those who sit on the fence and are witness to the social derision which will be applied to them, if they come down on the wrong side of an issue.

wink wink nudge nudge - CopyThe elements which are comprised by a celeber cavilla fallacy include the following claims to authority:

  • Assumed definition of the phrase or weapon word
  • Assumed framing of employment context
  • Assumed knowledge of your thoughts
  • Assumed evidence for characterization of those thoughts as being pseuodscience
  • Assumed Popper falsification of the ideas involved
  • Assumed acceptance of this falsification on the part of science
  • Assumed acceptance of this falsification on the part of society
  • Assumed accuracy of application of this principal to you personally
  • Assumed homogeneity of belief among those who appear to take related positions to yours.

Therefore this necessity, demands the following neologism:

Celeber Cavilla Fallacy

a fad condemnation phrase of assumed immediate definition and gravitas. Also known as the ‘wink-wink, nudge-nudge’ fallacy.

/philosophy : fallacy : fad phrases and weapon words : latin (‘celebrated jeer’ or ‘famous quip’)/ : a form of Truzzi Fallacy. A wink wink nudge nudge categorization or condemnation. A counter-claim which is specious in its assertion and usually ad hominem in its implication. However the counter-claim issuer employs it because they are under the false impression that since the accusation phrase is in such popular use, therefore the claim comes incumbent with immediate credibility in the offing, along with an assumed definition, evidence and acceptance.

It is distinguished from a one-liner, Truzzi fallacy or MiHoDeAL claim in that the celeber cavilla fallacy seeks to inappropriately* target by pejorative categorization, and permanently neutralize without merit or effort, a specific person or group of persons.

The Three Tests*

celeber cavilla fallacy - Copy - CopyDoes The Ethical Skeptic’s framing of Social Skepticism and the identification of Social Skeptics constitute a celeber cavilla fallacy itself? In short no; as long as we apply the self-circumspect tenets of Ethical Skepticism the use of this term fails all three tests of belief enforcement through a celeber cavilla fallacy (one need only commit one, in order to be fallacious in approach):

  1. Belief Focused – The application of the celeber cavilla category typically will focus on the person’s beliefs not conforming to a prescribed set. We don’t care what a person’s beliefs are, just as long as they do not falsely advertise them as being proved by science, or make them mandatory on everyone else.
  2. Condemning – The celeber cavilla categorization is employed to establish that anything the person has to offer (action, word or belief) is regarded as comical or worthless. Social Skeptics offer sound counters to classic religious oppression and stress the importance of STEM education. In this we agree with them. Not everything they do or say is wrong.
  3.  a priori Non-science – The celeber cavilla categorization is employed to a priori falsify without science, a certain set of observations, personal beliefs, avenue of research or threatening set of scientific constructs. We hold open, scientifically, a myriad of beliefs which Social Skeptics promote, we do not declare them false a priori. We want science to continue however and for society not to assume these constructs as proved or as the null hypothesis, without merit.

Therefore, our pejorative employment of Social Skepticism categorizations fails all three tests for a celeber cavilla fallacy.

We at The Ethical Skeptic do not wink and nudge. We confront in a clear, precise and direct manner. ‘Here is what I believe you are doing wrong in your approach. Address this, and we can continue to resolve this mystery together with real science.’

Protecting the integrity of the Knowledge Development Process, agnostic as to its conclusions or the players who succeed in helping develop that knowledge set, can never constitute a fallacy of any kind. We are not deriding Social Skeptics for their beliefs, we confirm that often they are devotees to science, and consider much of what they support to indeed be science.  It is when they wish to push their religion, mock and deride those who think differently, and attempt to squelch entire avenues of research, that we must stand up and speak. Such an ethic is never a fallacy. However, the examples below are some of the key examples of the celeber cavilla fallacy in use today.


  • Pseudo Scientist
  • Anti-Science
  • Contrarian
  • Denier
  • Creationist
  • Anti-Vax
  • Truther
  • Non Critical Thinker
  • Tin Foil Hat
  • Quack
  • Believer
  • Republican
  • Sheeple
  • Conspiracy Theorist
  • Credulous
  • Bubba
  • Hoaxer
  • Magical Thinker
  • Bigfooter
  • UFO Nut
  • Drinking the Kool-Aid

TES Signature

November 25, 2015 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Argument Fallacies | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Are You a Cynic? You Might be Surprised

Are you a cynic, or simply skepticky? Perform steps I – III below and rate yourself on the Cynic Scale. You might be surprised at what you discover.

Step I – Rate your agreement with each of the following statements from 1 to 5, with 5 indicating most agreement that this statement represents your sentiment or usual actions as applicable.

Are You a Cynic p - Copy1.  I generally regard skepticism as an evidence based method of evaluating claims and applying discernment to information I am given.     1  2  3  4  5

2.  I think that skepticism should be employed to evaluate most likely conclusions on an issue, especially if it aids the effectiveness and focus of science or scientists.     1  2  3  4  5

3.  I sometimes identify myself to others as a skeptic when in an online discussion in which claims are made which are questionable, but I am not a cynic.     1  2  3  4  5

4.  I am wise to apply doubt or critical thinking to any subject or claim before I have the access or time to research it more.     1  2  3  4  5

5.  When examining evidence behind a claim, I often start with a certain set of reliable reference resources then branch out from there for more depth.     1  2  3  4  5

6.  I apply doubt, critical thinking or skepticism and it has made me a more trustworthy person whom to ask about challenging issues.     1  2  3  4  5

7.  If I spend too much time among the believers I tend to get weary and need to reconnect with my peers, if not for simply a little comic relief.     1  2  3  4  5

8.  If we are to start the process of science, I like to ask a question as the first step. After all, that is the scientific method.     1  2  3  4  5

9.  My powers of perception or discernment are above average.     1  2  3  4  5

10.  With some exceptions, my peers in skepticism tend to agree with most of my positions and I agree with most of theirs.     1  2  3  4  5

11.  I can name a couple forums/subjects where conspiracy theorists seem to gather in higher number.     1  2  3  4  5

12.  When hit with a challenging claim, my first thought is to examine the evidence behind it, if any.     1  2  3  4  5

13.  Agents for various irrational beliefs are at times now posing as ‘skeptics.’     1  2  3  4  5

14.  I sometimes am aghast at the level of bunk accusations targeting our corporations, medical and food producers.     1  2  3  4  5

15.  All things being equal, I will pretty much always tend to side with the consensus of scientists on a controversial matter.     1  2  3  4  5

16.  I think that people who believe irrational things and/or mislead others should be held to some form of public or humorous example.     1  2  3  4  5

17.  I think in terms of skepticism when the contentions of a pseudoscience come up, but I am not a cynic about it.     1  2  3  4  5

18.  I am usually more comfortable when citing the conclusions of science, than swallowing bunk without evidence.     1  2  3  4  5

19.  I don’t regularly read pseudoscience research; it would for the most part be a waste of time.     1  2  3  4  5

20.  I regularly apply doubt and critical thinking on subjects outside my field(s) of expertise.     1  2  3  4  5

Now tally up the total of points you earned on questions 1 – 20.

Step II – Now, add 20 points to your score tally from Step I.

Step III – Now find your position on the Scale of Cynicism above.

Skeptic (20 – 65) – You have a healthy perspective on knowledge and the pitfalls of human nature and knee jerk thinking. You are skeptical of self first, then skeptical of claims to represent truth and official knowledge. Yes you are skeptical of extraordinary claims, but you understand that this is not the only domain for its application. You do not seek to control or deceive self or others – rather seek to simply find out what is going on through proactive investigation, without a prejudiced desire for specific outcomes.  You don’t see evidence as a thing to be brought to you on a silver platter, and recognize that most of science does not operate on ‘proof.’ You can spot a cynic a mile away and well before they can even spot themselves.

Skepticky – (66 – 87) – You have heard all the propaganda regarding skepticism and what it is, and some of it was sticky. You put on this pretense like a fashionable coat and wore it – but didn’t think too much through what you were actually adopting as a character and life’s philosophy. Inside, you have a sincere desire to follow the evidence, yet are hampered by exempting self and other ‘skeptics’ from your skepticism, thoughts about ‘proof’ and the burden of ‘claims’ being brought to you. Because this seems to sound right, right? This renders you vulnerable to being used as a functional cynic as opposed to a real skeptic. Real cynics would not even give you the time of day, save for your spouting off the familiar one liners. So you do. Shake loose these shackles and learn what real skepticism is about.

Social Cynic – (88 – 120) – You are a full-on cynic, but being acutely aware that such an approach to life is both bad science and bad character, you seek to hide this flaw from both yourself and those around you.  Your ‘skepticism’ comprises a set of mandatory beliefs couched inside a few key good sounding thoughts you overheard from allies in forum arguments or from celebrities about skepticism. Try and find even one thing you disagree with social skeptics on. I bet you can’t. That is a sad state of affair. Try and tell yourself that you don’t have a target group which you disdain for their beliefs. Your self won’t believe you. You need a skepticism and possibly a character overhaul. A life spent anesthetized through code phrases, blinded from understanding its own cynicism, is a life which is very less likely to result in any benefit to mankind.

TES Signature

November 22, 2015 Posted by | Deskeption | , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Best Snake Oil is One You Don’t Even Realize is Being Peddled

the elixir - Copy

Dr. Randmer's Amazing Skeptic Snake Oil - Copy

Woo Cured: Ghosts, Bigfoot, UFO’s, God, Diseases, The Afterlife, Goblins, Leprechauns, Faeries, Loch Ness Monster, Aliens, Vaccinations, Big Government, Corporatism, Cronyism, False Memories, Glyphosate, GMO Foods, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, One’s own horrible character, Academia, Stupid People, The Police, Politicians, The Devil, ESP, Clairvoyance, Seances, Ouija Boards, Homeopathy, Palmistry, Cold Reading, Lyme Disease, Autism, Dysbiosis, h.pylori, Forbidden Archaeology, Old Pyramids and Sphinx, Gobekli Tepe, Atlantis, Malta, Puma Punku, Lemuria, Art Bell, Alien Abductions, Cold Fusion, Ringo Starr, Hollow Earth and Moon, Nazca Lines, NDE’s, CIA, FBI, CDC, Anomalous DNA, Old skulls, Out of Place Artifacts, Religions, Panspermia, Ozone Treatments, and 768 more Woo conclusions! There is not one thing that you cannot know, immediately and in finality! Order today!

Warning: may cause ethical slips, frequent anger outbursts, brains to shut down, balls to fall off, delusions of grandeur or cause an upswing in frequency of snippy moods. Seek assistance if your alcohol or drug intake increases because your inner self can no longer stand your nasty actions towards the people you have harmed, your poser facade or the crap your outer self is pushing as truth. If you experience an erection for longer than four hours call a doctor.

TES Signature

November 20, 2015 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Deskeption, Social Disdain | , , , , | Leave a comment

Ethical Skepticism – Part 6 – Say What You Mean and Mean What You Say

Social Skeptics bear the habit of hiding what it is they are seeking to promote. They accomplish this misrepresentation through terminological equivocation and the employment of club signature intimidation words. It behooves the Ethical Skeptic to understand what a person means when they utter certain words, and ensure that the words are not being implied as club weapons to enforce specious religious doctrines. It behooves the Ethical Skeptic to understand their own employment of such words, and exercise the use of them in a context of ethical clarity; to disarm the social inference that such words mean more, than they really do. To err in either regard is the source of all fanaticism.

Say What You Mean

Social Skeptics erroneously influence their acolytes through misleading them as to the meaning behind the terms they employ, and the nature of the underlying philosophy entailed. They believe that their use of the terms evolution, atheism and science affords them immediate scientific gravitas and a perch of correctness. When a person slings around the terms evolution, atheism and science, for me this is not tantamount to an immediate free pass into the graces of trustworthiness. I regularly encourage the Social Skeptic vulnerable among us to understand what it is indeed that they mean, by the terms they employ. Clarity is one of the consequentialist goals of Ethical Skepticism. If you represent critical thinking, science and rationality, then one would be hypocritical to not employ complex terms in a frame of meaningful reference. Otherwise the terms are simply used as a weapon of pretense and intimidation. I use the words evolution, atheism and science – therefore anything I say is scientifically correct, and I have an entire cadre of bullies available to back me up if I so choose. This is not science, it is a hypo epistemological process of fraud.

As an Ethical Skeptic, if I am to continue inside a discourse of life and meaning with such a person, I need to know if they really understand what they are saying when they spout off the words so frequently uttered by their ‘mentors.’ I really need to know what they mean by

Evolution – do they mean speciated diversity of life through the generational culling of environmentally stimulated allele changes?

Or …do they mean that life sprang up on Earth through abiogenesis and random primordial ooze, therefore we are simply a one way genetic expression machine which has deterministically resulted in the fluke illusion of consciousness?  The former fact is science, the latter argument is a highly separate religion – often protected by and conflated inside the club weapon word ‘evolution.’

Atheism – do they mean a personal ethic of not commenting or concluding around this undefinable construct called ‘god?’

Or …do they mean that they hate (and habitually apologize around this) anything to do with a certain religion, its adherents and any idea that a magical bearded entity poofed the universe into existence in 6 days, 6000 years ago? Do they really mean that they choose to venerate Material Monism, and an existential lack of any innate purpose to this biosphere Earth, or any other similar events which occur in our Universe? Really, because I am not sure how one derives such a conclusion. I did not possess their enthalpy laden spaceship, that much psychic clairvoyance, nor that much time, in order to determine such an extraordinary claim myself. The former choice is an ethical action, the latter argument is a highly separate religion called Nihilism – often protected by and conflated inside the club weapon word ‘atheism.’

Science – do they mean both the body of accepted knowledge and the method by which we objectively qualify and build that knowledge?

Or …do they mean screaming about a selective set of physical measures which target confirmation and methodically avoid falsification of a specific religious understanding of the world around us? Do they mean an ontology protected through a non acknowledged Omega Hypothesis (the hypothesis which is developed to end all argument) masquerading as the ‘null hypothesis,’ through an inverse negation fallacious approach – and therefore socially enforced as truth? The former definition is science, the latter argument is a highly separate religious hypoepistemology – often protected by and conflated inside the club weapon word ‘science.’

Science is also about clarity, value, disciplined thinking and trustworthiness. When you hear me use the words above, I mean the former and not the latter in each case. If I attempted to imply the orange ontologies in the chart below, as scientific truth – I could not look at myself in the mirror in the morning – from such a display of dishonesty. Passing off one’s ontology as a science, constitutes not only pseudoscience, but is a Wittgenstein Error (Epistemological) as well. Be wary of those who can do such without conscience. Be very wary of those who can not only look at themselves in the mirror after promoting such fraud, but aspire to celebrity in the process as well. The incorrect use of these words abrogates your claim to represent scientific thinking. Say what you mean – and you will gain the respect of those who truly understand philosophy and science.

Say What You Mean and Mean What You Say - Copy

Mean What You Say

The Lie of AllegianceIf you join a movement, organization or philosophical movement – do so because you really understand and really mean and believe those tenets which are promoted by that movement. Don’t do so because you desire to appear as smart and scientific, or need some kind of self affirmation and acceptance, pep rallies or the rush of shaming others whom you regard as beneath you intellectually or socially. Such dispositions render one vulnerable to being manipulated by celebrity and malevolent influences. Otherwise, you are living what is called a Lie of Allegiance. If you, quietly over a couple beers, will soften your stance and reflect on a whole series of doubts you carry – but must hold in abeyance – then you are living a Lie of Allegiance. People in churches do this to make their families happy. People in Social Skepticism do this, and worse, in order to gain acceptance to that club. This personal foible is anathema to the Ethical Skeptic.

Fanaticist’s Error

/philosophy : self understanding : cognitive dissonance : error/ : mistaking one’s fanaticism or being ‘hardcore’ as positively indicative of the level of understanding and commitment one possesses inside a philosophy or adopted belief set. The reality is that being fanatical or hardcore indicates more one’s dissonance over not fully believing, nor fully understanding the nature of the belief tenets to which they have lent fealty.

A fanaticist is different from a fanatic. A fanatic simply loves a particular subject or brand. A fanaticist on the other hand employs their outward extremism as a cover to hide an unacknowledged and suppressed inner cognitive dissonance.

A useful tool in Social Skepticism, the Lie of Allegiance, keeps the faithful unified and aligned in playing select activist roles.  A Lie of Allegiance is often promoted through one-liners, weapon words and circularly quoted propaganda, initially deployed by celebrity SSkeptics, and enforced by the faithful, looking for purpose power and reward. It relies upon the ignorance of its participants, leveraged through the application of pep rallies and the pummeling of effigies of evil opponents. This is why the acolytes and trolls of Social Skepticism often focus on politics and persons, and not science itself. They either do not fully understand, nor do they fully believe, the philosophy to which they have lent their fealty.

This inner dissonance, prompts what we observe as fanaticism.

The Lie of Allegiance

1. The origin of fanaticism. The core argument which binds together a group on one side in a false dilemma

2.  A core philosophy (such as Nihilism or Material Monism) which is masked by a differing but similar and more attractive cover philosophy (such as atheism) because of the cover philosophy’s generally more acceptable nature.

3.  A principle which is not fully regarded as truth by many or most of the members of a club of adherents, rather is adopted as a preemptive compromise in order to gain acceptance in that club. A principle employed only as the default, Omega Hypothesis, or battle cry agenda around which to combat those on the other side of the false dilemma argument.  The measure of adherence to the Lie of Allegiance principle is more a reflection of disdain towards those of antithetical positions, than it is an expression of rational conclusion on the part of the adherent.


i.  Many of the proponents in a Lie of Allegiance based organization, do not fully understand their Lie of Allegiance, nor perceive its contrast with the cover philosophy to which they in reality adhere.

Example:  Most self proclaimed atheists cannot coherently frame the difference between atheism, skepticism, agnosticism, naturalism, nihilism, ignosticism, monism, materialism, tolerance and apatheism.

ii.  Many members involved in a Lie of Allegiance do not in reality care about the specifics of the teaching under which they profess fealty.  Specific psychologies involving the Ten Pillars are at play inside the binding power of the Lie of Allegiance.

Example:  Many self proclaimed atheists wear the badge as a result of an emotional state, rather than a discriminating choice of conscience.  This renders them susceptible to Nihilist’s, who use rally cries and the pummeling of christian issues in effigy, as a way to enlist the emotional allegiance of those who have poorly rationalized their ontology.

Social Skeptics bear the habit of hiding what it is they are seeking to promote. They accomplish this misrepresentation through terminological equivocation and the employment of club signature weapon words. It behooves the Ethical Skeptic to understand what a person means when they utter certain words, and ensure that the words are not being implied as club weapons to enforce specious religious doctrines. It behooves the Ethical Skeptic to understand their own employment of such words, and exercise the use of them in a context of ethical clarity; to disarm the social inference that such words mean more, than they really do.

I look at myself in the mirror each morning, and I like and respect the guy I see there.

TES Signature

November 16, 2015 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism | , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ten Reasons People No Longer Find Skeptics Credible

Skeptics are losing the argument, losing the war for the American mind. Their actions appear to indicate a confidence in the strategy of screaming louder, accusing everyone of being anti-science, conducting more personal attacks and pushing more idiot-but-celebrity personalities into the limelight; hoping that this approach will somehow rescue themselves in their plight.
However, in the end, all this bray will prove to constitute is simply the squeaking noise of their fingers desperately clutching at the metal surface, descending down the slide of irrelevance into posterity.

t1larg.angry.toddler.thinkstock - Copy - CopyVirtually all skeptics believe that, in order to improve the quality of life experienced by those who inhabit this world, then the scientific literacy of our leadership and that of the general population must be enriched. This tautology is belied however, as skeptics are frustrated by an ever increasingly difficult or opposing audience with regard to the conclusions they attempt to foist – on both the American population, and their elected representatives. Perhaps this is not indicative so much of a decline in the rational/scientific mindset of the general population, as it is reflective of a specific set of mistakes being wrought inside the skepticism movement itself. Coupled with a complete change of landscape since the Social Skepticism movement was launched to protect corporate/social interests in 1972, these mistakes are combining to change the dynamic of how the public conscience is swayed, and indicates strong foreboding for Social Skepticism.

Why do leading periodicals today decry the “War on Science?” Through our research conducted over the past decades across a wide range of social topics, we have drawn this conclusion: Cognitive biases cause skeptics to focus too much on correctness and control, instruct others as if they are idiots, try too hard to fit in with each other, and depend too much on experts in a single sub-field to provide a basis for opinion on broad venues of life and social discourse. All serious mistakes of non-science and Wittgenstein Error. In this article we discuss how these deeply ingrained skeptic foibles interfere with their message—through ten specific weaknesses which have manifested over the last 15 years.

Skeptics are Losing the Battle for the American Mind and Here are Ten Reasons Why

     Skyrocketing Medical Debt and an Increasingly Sick Young US Demographic

Despite the argument surrounding the latest “1 in 45” autism parental survey, an entire list of new diseases has not only sprung up, but have become the top ten most prescribed-for maladies; and only in the United States for the most part.(1) (2) As we watch our selves and our children grow increasingly sick as a nation; as we watch our loved ones suffer and die from a new class of diseases which did not exist 80 years ago, and as our family medical budgets rise by an average of $3,450 per year and destroy our lifestyles, the arrogant screams of Science Based Medicine begin to ring hollow and appear more and more malevolent. With autism skyrocketing in our children, IBS skyrocketing, alimentary canal cancers growing, diabetes skyrocketing much faster than calories, sugar and lethargy can explain, and our loved one’s beginning to die earlier, people are beginning to doubt what oppressive groups claiming to represent medical science in the media have to say. This is not a Baby Boomer phenomena, as these diseases are now regularly striking victims in high school and college. Being a skeptic is one thing, and most of us will afford you the chance to play your intellectual arrogance game so long as it does not affect our families. But now it is personal, deadly and despair inducing. People are no longer tolerating the arrogance of voices of denial and correctness.

     The Social Pressure Crucible They Created Around Fringe Subjects Has Been Shattered

The internet is serving to shatter the Social Pressure Crucible that has traditionally bound us from speaking of our paranormal experiences.(3) I have had four close friends, friends who have died, dead – on the operating table, and all of whom have come to me (because they trust my ability to be objective and not call them crazy) and share privately the extraordinary experiences they had. Experiences during, and only during the time in which they were dead.  Four incredible, honest and information verifiable experiences. Were this thirty years ago, they would not have come forward. How do I dismiss their observations (they are not claims)? As a skeptic I do not dismiss them. I ponder, catalog and watch for further information. These four persons are no longer afraid to come forward, much to the chagrin of the fake skeptic crowd of thugs seeking to enforce their religious choice, Nihilism. Most everyone is understanding that two things now are invalid responses to such challenging observations: Knee-jerk denial, and Spiral of Silence-styled oppression. Those days, along with those fake skeptics are all a thing of the past.

     Statistics Show that People are Not Buying ‘Big-A’ Atheism

Despite the fact that a recent Pew Research study elucidates that a full 50 million Americans have departed or declined traditional religion(4), fewer than 12% of those in the apostate population even privately profess atheism when queried. Given the enormous amount of vitriol spewed by the group claiming scientific knowledge as to the basis of their belief validity concerning religion and gods, why then the refusal by even the most open minded of the general population to accept what they have to say? The simple fact is that ‘Big-A’ Atheism (as it is commonly called – the A standing for a variety of terms) is shallow, arrogant and every bit as dogmatic and religious as is fundamentalism.(5) It is a fundamentalist religion after all. ‘Big-A’ Atheism (Nihilism) is a religion; but quietly, rational people regard ignostic atheism as not being a religion, rather simply a personal choice. This allows them to ponder something besides Atheism and Theism. Something more.

     Science is Being Abused to Enslave Not Free Us

The University of California Berkeley cites in its guidance on science, that “Science doesn’t tell you how to use scientific knowledge” and “Science doesn’t draw conclusions about supernatural explanations.”(6) Despite this, science under the SSkeptics’ watch since 1972, is not being employed to free us and our minds; rather is being abused to support oligarch businesses, an oppressive religion and to harm/economically enslave families.(7) The Social Skepticism movement manifests its goals through support of several specific special interest groups. These are interests of allegiance without exception, in which Social Skepticism seems to have an irrationally high focus, were it solely comprising an unstructured movement of individual ethic and science alone. Key among these partner special interests are the very familiar laundry list of control groups which manage our economically inflating agriculture, healthcare, health insurance, education, pharmaceuticals, universities and unions. Science in the hands of, and under the watch of Social Skepticism, is damaging Americans, their families, their nation. Most people are beginning to see this manifestly.

     Skeptics Tend to Scream Conclusions and Not Conduct Research of Ideas

As ‘fringe’ and ‘paranormal’ researchers bring a continuous flow of higher and higher quality evidence, skeptics do absolutely nothing but scream louder and continually demonstrate that they do not possess the grasp of science that they claim.(8) Proof gaming (demand to see final proof before research) and squelching of Sponsors and Discovery Science Methodology are the chief tactics of the fake skeptic. People grow in their insistence regarding observations under a paranormal moniker, and grow increasingly tired of being called delusional, stupid or liars by those in the arrogant Social Skeptic community. Besides the role models are often horrible persons, ones whom most Americans find shallow, attention seeking and mean.(9)  Celebrities, blogs, defamation and social exclusions are no longer enough weaponry in the Social Skeptics’ arsenal, wholly now insufficient to keep the population in line. Sorry Social Skeptics, it’s just not working anymore.

     Employment of Trolling Punks Obsessing Over Persons & Politics and Not Science

Social Skeptics coordinate through specific social media sites such as Reddit and patrol a variety of popular fringe topic forums. According to Google Ad Planner the median Reddit user is male (59%), 18–29 years of age, and is connecting from the United States (68%). Pew Research has stated that 6% of all American adult Internet users have used Reddit and males were twice as likely to be Reddit users as females.(10) Reddit is a notorious hangout for the arrogant, inexperienced, shallow and criminally defamatory. These are persons who suffer Fanaticist’s Error. Skeptics ranks increasingly comprise inexperienced, thug minded, Reddit-styled-gang mentality, ignorant, hot-headed, overconfident punks. Most Americans either sense or see this, fully cognizant of meaning behind the Shakespearean quote “Methinks he doth protest too much.” When the number one circulated presentation at TAM2014 was teaching Social Skeptics how to “Not be A Dick,” you know that there is a problem in the Cabal with this.(11) Social Skeptics mistakenly think that this negativity will constitute a strategy of success. They routinely underestimate the ethical quality of Americans, presuming us all to be exactly like themselves. This approach will not succeed with Americans. The last few years have seen our first serious lawsuits requiring Social Skeptics to establish legal defense funds because of attacks on persons and businesses. People of science, like me, have already seen the political motivation, and the puppet show of fake science. They are not buying it.

     The People Impacted are the New Peer Review

The availability of information and scientific studies is allowing diligent common persons to conduct in-depth research on their own. Contentions can be readily presented and refuted. Mom’s in particular are the primary observers of their childrens’ health for example, in contrast to ‘Science Based Medicine,’ who is not. They are disagreeing and are speaking up. Let’s be ethically clear here: if  you are the victim, impacted by a new action of science – then by default – you ARE the peer. These peers are questioning when government regulators take Vice President and higher jobs inside the corporations for which they just crafted legislation. They are elucidating the malfeasance, financing and prejudice of authors involved in studies touted as being ‘unbiased.’ They are not intimidated by extraordinary claims that others represent science, and that mom’s are stupid or delusional. Again, it is just not working. Moms are the scientists now, they are making the first hand observations and doing the testing – the have to. In comparison, the fakers are simply talented at making 80 year our-of-date noise. Activist organizations such as Thinking Moms’ Revolution are making a big splash – a manifest of the increasing health and financial pressure on us which has resulted from the abuse of science by Social Skepticism since the 1970’s.

     Scientists Quietly No Longer Support Social Skepticism

Scientists do not think as does the Cabal of Social Skeptics and studies make this clear.(9) Scientists after all are people. Their kids get sick, their food damages their health and they have paranormal experiences too. At a certain point to the ethical mind, tenets of philosophy must yield to sound evidence. The evidence is around us every day. Scientists have strange occurrences in their houses, some have seen Sasquatch and UFO’s or have children who have had vaccine injuries or an entire neighborhood with allergies, cancer and diabetes. Does this make them immediately credulous on such issues? Does this mean they are making a claim to proof? No, of course not. An inverse negation fallacy is tantamount to making a claim, and cannot be defended by masquerading an Omega Hypothesis through a ‘Oh it’s the null hypothesis’ baloney – real scientists get this. All this does serve to give them pause, and opens the question: “Are our arrogant voices of conclusive certainty, maybe premature?”  The resounding answer to the ethical mind, is Yes.

     People Now Think Outside the Box and are No Longer Intimidated by a Claim to Represent Science

Media is discovering that not only are people interested in the strange; moreover, and even more importantly, they want to know about the world around the. They are not afraid of out of the box thinking or tough questions like they were 50 years ago. This makes Social Skeptics furious. The growth in paranormal oriented media, has not only detracted from the stream of violent soap-opera-fiction big network fare, but has spawned a whole new generation of channels dedicated solely to paranormal, science fiction and the strange.(13) They grow ever more suspicious of people who make the extraordinary claim to represent science, yet at the same time refuse to examine the evidence on a variety of challenging issues.

     The American Public is Weary of Being Called “Anti-Science”

The American public is tired of this, and is calling out people like Steven Novella for making grandiose and unfounded claims: “Not only do people reject the science specific to their issue, they reject science itself.”(14) The simple fact is that the Anti-Science accusation crowd is a political party and oligarchy movement, and nothing more. People sense this, and science is damaged in the process of its role as a football for these, less than scrupulous persons.(15) When one issues a MiHoDeAL Claim – people are no longer seeing such a claim as being based upon science. We are not stupid, delusional, irrational, unscientific, anecdotal-conclusion vulnerable, not as susceptible to hoaxes nor are we liars as you imply. This continual insult of the American public, is nothing more than an attempt to remove constitutional rights. It is simply the squeaking noise skeptic fingers make as they desperately cling to the metal and skid down the slide of irrelevance into posterity.

Guys. You are losing the battle. Those of us highly involved in science and the questions on the mind of the American population are going to make sure that you do. In the end, Social Skepticism will prove simply to be a cautionary tale parents tell the children of the future.

TES Signature

1.  “Endocrine-Immune Disruption and the Exorbitant Cost of Social Skepticism Induced Bliss,” The Ethical Skeptic, Aug 2, 2014;

2.  “The Urgent Need to Reform the Cartel Science Around Glyphosate,” The Ethical Skeptic, Nov 19, 2014;

3.  “Obedience, Social Pressure, and their Fatality,” Anti Essays, extracted Nov 15, 2015;

4.  “If the New Religiously Unaffiliated are Not Atheists, Then Just Who are They?,” The Ethical Skeptic, May 15, 2015;

5.  “No You are Not an Atheist, You are a Nihilist,” The Ethical Skeptic, Jan 7, 2015;

6.  UC Berkeley, “Understanding Science: How science really works,” extracted Nov 15, 2015;

7.  “The Corrupt Oligarchy of Social Skepticism,” The Ethical Skeptic, Apr 18, 2014;

8.  “Survey Shows Rise in Paranormal Beliefs,” Center for Inquiry, Dec 12, 2009;

9.  “U.K. paranormal survey shows rise in belief,” Doubtful News, Sep 16, 2013; http://doubtflnews/2013/09/uk-paranormal-survey-shows-rise-in-belief/.

10.  Duggan, Maeve, Smith, Aaron, “6% of Online Adults are Reddit Users,” Pew Research Internet Project.

11.  Phil Plait, “Don’t Be a Dick,” Discover: Bad Astronomy, Aug 17, 2010;

12.  “Real Scientists Disagree with SSkeptics About World’s Top Concerns for the Future,” The Ethical Skeptic, Apr 3, 2013;

13.  “Paranormal Media: Audiences, Spirits and Magic in Popular Culture,” Oxford Journals, vol 53, issue 4;

14.  “The Rising Age of the Cartel: Your Freedoms Were Simply an Experiment,” The Ethical Skeptic, Jul 7, 2015;

15.  “The Anti-Science Party,” MSNBC, May 15, 2014;

November 15, 2015 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda | , , , | Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: