The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

How You Say It Makes All the Difference

It’s not just what you say, but how you say it. Well, possibly those irritating sentence diagrams from 8th grade have paid off after all.  I believe that merit resides in the idea of splitting our categories of misrepresentation, in the Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation, into a structure producing an additional category member. That new member being – Misrepresentation through Locution.

When I write, I tend to develop slightly longer and concatenated sentence structures. This stems from decades of experience in technical writing. Technical writing tends to be composition inside of which the author attempts to anticipate and counter, in text, any imprecision which might lead later to a misunderstanding of the material. Patents for instance, are submitted in such a fashion. A patent might be suggested for change in an Office Action by the USPTO examiner, in order to clarify where a patent has overlapped with an existing intellectual registry. The patent being in need of small changes in the verbiage in order to eliminate the conflict. Technical writing is a bit like legalese; to wit, I have written many of the contracts my company has issued, with only a final review by our attorneys in many instances.  Attorneys are sticklers for ensuring that, in addition to the structure and stricture of the law, a specific set of locution introduced uncertainties are avoided at all costs.

Contracts cannot tolerate uncertainty in the terms of agreement, and neither can technical writing. Uncertainty, in the forms of locution error below, introduces the opportunity for cheating, skirting, misinterpretation, and misunderstanding. Things which can render a clause or an entire contract null in the inception.

If the ambiguity is obvious it is called “patent,” and if there is a hidden ambiguity it is called “latent.” If there is an ambiguity, and the original writer cannot effectively explain it, then the ambiguity will be decided in the light most favorable to the other party.¹

But Social Skepticism, does not develop technical studies nor contracts. Its specialty is the promulgation of correct thought and the interpretation of science on behalf of us all, through the media. It is in the forum where a whole series of misrepresentations occurs, both patent and latent. Below we outline our new category of misrepresentation in The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation, Misrepresentation through Locution.

locution errors - Copy cbg - Copy - Copy

Equivocation
Ambiguity
Amphibology
Context Dancing
Wittgenstein Error
Accent Drift
Subject Ambiguity

TES Signature


¹  Encyclopedia of American Law: Ambiguity. (n.d.) West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008). Retrieved August 29 2015

August 29, 2015 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Argument Fallacies | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Corber’s Burden of Skepticism and The Omega Hypothesis

The Omega Hypothesis is the argument which is foisted to end all argument, period.
Social Skeptics work to defend this set of beliefs through several means. First they codify these beliefs into a partly unacknowledged, but comprehensively protected set. Further then, through application of an inverse negation fallacy, and conflating the ethics of skepticism with corrupted methods of cynicism they establish the preeminence of their favored beliefs, without or by skirting the rigor of science. All this stems from a principle of parsimony called Corber’s Burden. When one makes an authoritative claim as to possessing knowledge of the complete set of that which is incorrect, one must be 100% correct (or at least appear to be so).

Omeaga Hypothesis - CopyWho needs further science and hypothesis testing when you have skepticism? Further study of anything which falls outside of The Omega Hypothesis is pseudoscience. Why study it when we already have the answer through the magic of critical thinking and rationality? Such is the rationalization of the Social Skeptic. The Social Skeptic will then appoint their debunking resume with ample sets of Stooge Posed examples, case anecdotes of ridiculous debunking wherein their ‘critical thinking’ skills resulted in the correct answer. Jesus on a piece of toast, mermaids, swallowing whole bottles of sugar pills, statues drinking milk. An erstwhile skeptic Christmas tree adorned with such a profusion of correct ornaments that it will be difficult to impossible to locate any incorrect ones. They will imply that the entire suite of ideas they have disproved constitutes 100% bunk. But they need be cautious in such a claim. For god knows what the implications of being wrong are – when your job is to instruct everyone as to what is indeed, incorrect. This is related inside a tenet of parsimony, under Ockham’s Razor, called the Truzzi Fallacy or Burden of Proof. Making a claim to falseness is the same as making a claim. This applies as well to situations where the claimant implies falsity through various non-evidence avenues – or by attempting to shoot down or plausibly deny all alternative ideas.

When one makes or implies a claim to falseness, one assumes the burden of proof.¹

In ancient Biblical times, the test or ‘burden of proof’ of a prophet was that they need be correct in their prognostications 100%.² Thankfully we no longer rely on prophets to tell us a couple things about the future.  Now we rely upon Social Skeptics to instruct us as to ALL things about the present.  The nature of tendering answers in lieu of science (a false form of skepticism), demands that the purveyor of such correct conclusive thought – necessarily be correct in 100% of their claims.

For in those cases where you are right – you serve to simply re-enforce the prevailing dogma – thereby adding no real value.

And if even if in one case, you are wrong – even on 1% of the ‘pseudoscience’ you squelch without any research or real effort – your entire life’s contribution has been a net disservice to humanity.

This reality is born out in a principle called Corber’s Burden.

Corber’s Burden

When one tenders an authoritative claim as to what is incorrect – one must be perfectly correct.

/philosophy : burden of proof : pretense/ The mantle of ethics undertaken when one claims the role of representing conclusive scientific truth, ascertained by means other than science, such as ‘rational thinking,’ ‘critical thinking,’ ‘common sense,’ or skeptical doubt. An authoritative claim or implication as to possessing knowledge of the complete set of that which is incorrect. The nature of such a claim to authority on one’s part demands that the skeptic who assumes such a role be 100% correct. If however, one cannot be assured of being 100% correct, then one must tender the similitude of such.

Corber’s Hypocrisy

/philosophy : pseudoscience : self misrepresentation/ : When a skeptic who dismisses a large set of specific subjects and who realizes that under Corber’s Burden they must be 100% correct in such a role – speaks often about ‘following the evidence’ or that they ‘withhold conclusion’ in a state of neutrality over such subjects – when indeed such claims of behavior are not the case at all in their habit or practice.

An example of this can be found in atheist activism. If one purports to be able to instruct others under the certainty that there is no god, and that the spirit realm and extra-material consciousness all do not exist – or further then that all these things have been ‘disproved by science’ – one ethically in this role is under the burden of needing to be 100% correct. In other words you better damn well be right – or you have committed a great harm to those you instructed. This burden applies to the greater domain of disdained topics as well.

The Furtive and Mandatory Hypothesis

Corber’s Burden/Hypocrisy introduces an additional form of pseudoscience which fails the Popper Demarcation of science versus non-science. One which can be found in the practices regarding the employment of an invalid, hidden, but also mandatory null hypothesis, HΩ. The Omega Hypothesis is hidden precisely because of Corber’s Burden. The creation and unmerited protection of the Omega Hypothesis constitutes a form of hypoepistemology which is spun through practices of Inverse Negation Fallacy, and corruption of the standards and methods of science. It is an embodiment and method of ensuring that what we believe in Social Skepticism, is at any given time, regarded as 100% correct – in accordance with Corber’s Burden. Through these practices of social epistemology, an apparent coherence can be spun around a particular view of a subject, and protection by the corrupted institutions of science afforded until such time as a Kuhn Paradigm Shift is able to be precipitated. Sadly, this often only occurs upon the death of the key social epistemologists involved.

Omega Hypothesis (HΩ)

The argument which is foisted to end all argument, period.

/philosophy : pseudoscience : social epistemology : apparent coherency/ : an invalid null hypothesis or a preferred idea inside a social epistemology. A hypothesis which is defined to end the argument without due scientific rigor, is afforded unmerited protection or assignment as the null. The surreptitiously held and promoted idea or the hypothesis protected by an Inverse Negation Fallacy. Often one which is promoted as true by default, with the knowledge in mind that falsification will be very hard or next to impossible to achieve.

All the above a set of practice which abrogates a Popperian view of the threshold and rigor of adequate science, relying instead on the promotion of an invalid null hypothesis (HΩ) through academic inertia, ignorance of the discipline, promotification science, social skeptic campaigns or corporate pressure. Now to be fair, this set of unethical practice was also developed and perfected by Abrahamism and other religions, both currently and in the past. It is not something practiced by only Social Skeptics by any means.

The Signals of an Omega Hypothesis at Play:

omega hypothesis truck - Copy
Proselytize Children or College Students

Do they tout the wonders of ‘critical thinking’ before one possesses a deep or even a nascent understanding of the world around them?

Bears a Similitude of Science or 100% Correct Authority

Do they love to wear the robes of, or enjoy the regard of self, as being equivalent to an expert or scientist on a subject? Are they never wrong or uncertain?

Promoted by Means of an Inverse Negation Fallacy

Do they just happen to habitually apply methodical doubt to every idea except for a favored few?

Defended by the Martial Art of Denial

Instead of bringing evidence, do they habitually and only provide excuses or plausible outs as to why opposing evidence could be invalid?

Involves Clubs, Literature and Bandwagons Events to Re-enforce

Do they only hang with their fellows, or regularly celebrate visible membership and fealty to positions of club opinion and membership? Conventions, outreach literature?

Byzantine Enforcement of Preferred Ideas Through Social Pressure Rather Than Empirical Study

Do they wink and nudge, loudly alert their fellows for action, patrol forums, and loudly decry anyone who thinks differently about ideas they disfavor? Do they cite your dissent as constituting a ‘lack of critical thinking skills’ – and position you inside a pigeon hole of canned irrationality?

Seeks Control of Media and Legislation in Lieu of Science

Do they seek to head off science by intervening through legislature or inflammatory articles, or consider the thoughts of the common man or those who have experienced anecdotes or health problems to be beneath them?

Enforced Through Celebrity and Priest

Do they seek the authoritative backing of celebrity voices, or celebrity for themselves, as a means of adding credibility to their message?

Employs Mocking and Derisiveness on All Opposing Thought

Is their first and primary resort to argument, a mocking disdain and derisiveness towards those who are honestly (and maybe errantly) seeking answers inside their lives? or are suffering a health challenge?

A word: Regard people who practice the above as DISHONEST.

You will find that the philosophy of Social Skepticism rarely if ever, delves into the philosophy of ethics, particularly in regard to the mantle assumed by one when undertaking the role of skepticism as an authority. Nor do they examine their steps in regard to enforcement of The Omega Hypothesis. Moreover, one would think that the role of the skeptic and free thinking would be to challenge The Omega Hypothesis. Sadly this is never the case inside Social Skepticism.

When philosophers speak of skepticism being the foundation of science, they are not referring to the unbridled spewing of methodical cynicism and prejudicial doubt which is practiced by those who today pretend to be, or assume the mantle of representing, science. Skepticism carries no agenda, save for the idempotent ethic of defending the knowledge development process. It challenges manipulation of data and methods through fear, establishment of control, practices of disdain, squelching of ideas, observations or persons, mafia elite powers and the cultivation of ignorance. This is why the definition of Ethical Skepticism begins with the statement:

Skepticism is the complement of sound science, not the privilege sword of a few pretenders. It is the handiwork of those who possess the grace, integrity and acumen requisite in the wielding of great ideas.

TES Signature


¹  Philosophic Burden of Proof, Wikipedia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

note: An example of a false employment of a common misconception of burden of proof can be found here: RationalWiki Burden of Proof

In the definition cited, Rational Wiki cites that only ‘new and remarkable ideas’ bear the burden of proof. That once evidence is presented, it is ‘up to the opposing side to disprove the evidence.’  Specifically they employ the Error of the Default Null: “If someone has presented you with an idea and says that the burden of proof is on you to disprove the idea, work out what the null hypothesis is and then put their evidence for the idea against it. The person claiming something is possible or has happened needs to produce evidence to refute the null hypothesis.”

All of these fallacious ideas are employed inside fake skepticism.

²  McCoy, Ryan, “Biblical Tests of a Prophet,” http://www.biblicaltestsofaprophet.com/

August 25, 2015 Posted by | Institutional Mandates, Argument Fallacies | , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Burden of Proof (in Gumballs)

Sometimes ‘simple’ is itself the extraordinary claim. A burden of proof may not always reside where we regard it. A claim that something is false, can be just as extraordinary as the claim that something is true. It is important that The Ethical Skeptic distinguish between claims which bear a burden of proof, those that do not, and those which are by their non-sequitur nature, irrelevant.

kids and teacher how many gumballs - CopyI was attending one of my kid’s school parties, a father/student night in elementary school one evening years ago, when an interesting contest arose. The teacher challenged the fathers to all guess how many gumballs were in a jar of gumballs she had on her desk. We all dutifully wrote our guesses down on a sheet of paper and tore it off into a small folded sheet to hand to the students’ homeroom teacher. Once all the slips of guesses were placed into a bowl, the teacher pulled each one out and wrote the guesses on the whiteboard for all to see.  110, 245, 43, 66, 190, and so forth. Number after number came up, and I waited dutifully for my guess of 143 to show. I had made the guess by counting the number of gumballs in the size of one fist. A fist is a common quick measure of volume in situations where one does not have any available measure for volume estimate. 11 Gumballs to a fist, 12 fists to the container – then a little sluff for the neck of the jar, which appeared to be full to the brim. 11 x 12 = 132, plus another 11 I could count in the neck. Thus my guess was 143.

Finally the teacher pulled up a piece of paper and started to read it, then stopped abruptly and smiled. “Well it’s obvious someone overhead me saying how many gumballs we had in the jar, earlier to Ms. Clemmens over here. So we won’t count that submission.” She set, what turned out to be my submission, aside.

The winning dad made a valiant guess of 127 against the correct count of 143 gumballs in the jar. Good job dad. I applauded his excellent guestimating skills and said nothing about the matter. After all, this is just elementary school. What we are taught here, does not matter in the larger scheme of things, right?  Such a drama-in-elementary exhibits an important principle with regard to claims of falseness.

When one makes or implies a claim to falseness, one assumes the burden of proof.¹

Under Ockham’s Razor, plurality should not be introduced without necessity. The homeroom teacher, by accusing me of exercising dishonesty in my submission, had violated Ockham’s Razor. The context of entrant anonymity in no way excused a direct or implicit claim of lying; as this is still the same contention. She had introduced a very complicated idea, by mistaking the challenge to be simple. She had chosen the simplest explanation – no one can guess EXACTLY the gumball count in my jar. As with fake skeptics, she failed to discern the real principle here, that of plurality – or hypothesis stacking – complicated-ness as it might otherwise be known. She chose without evidence, Hypothesis B below, and presumed it because of

Occam’s Razor‘ the simplest explanation – in my base of personal knowledge and critical thinking, the chance of guessing 143 gumballs is too unlikely to be considered as a valid outcome.

Therefore Hypothesis C below, had to be false, in her skeptical mind. Here are the available array of ideas surrounding my ‘lucky’ guess, as they stand:

Hypothesis A – The father is a psychic – he reads minds and could ascertain from my thoughts that the gumball count was 143.

This Hypothesis fails Ockham’s Razor for the simple fact that it must first presume that psychic ability exists, that the teacher knows what being psychic even means, that there was a knowledge on my part that it would be needed here, that I possessed the desire to falsify a document and impress a crowd, that I was looking for glory as to how prescient I am, that this is the way I impress and provide a role model for my son, and that I held that desire so profoundly that I would apply it in the guess of a gumball count in a jar at my kid’s father/student party.

A highly stacked – or pluralistic – hypothesis

Hypothesis B – The father is a cheater and a liar – he listened in on myself and my assistant and ascertained from my statement that the gumball count was 143.

This Hypothesis fails Ockham’s Razor for the simple fact that it must first presume that I cheat and lie, that the teacher is so smart and skeptical, that she can correctly detect this condition in a person and in me, that I possessed the desire to falsify a document and impress a crowd, that I was looking for glory as to how prescient I am, that cheating and lying is the way I impress and provide a role model for my son, and that I held that desire so profoundly that I would apply it in the guess of a gumball count in a jar at my kid’s father/student party.

A highly stacked – or pluralistic – hypothesis

Hypothesis C – The father made a talented and lucky guesstimate – from a pinch of math and a bit of english, he correctly guessed a gumball count of 143.

This hypothesis ‘holds the razor’ even thought it could be considered unlikely to guess 143 exactly – it is the null or favored hypothesis until such time as there is necessity, and a sufficient threshold of plurality evidence is brought forward which showed I ascertained the correct count of gumballs by any mutually exclusive and alternative means.

I simply employed a little bit of skill I have used in the field in Africa and Asia, with a bit of math, combined with a bit of estimator’s wisdom (english) to get lucky on my estimated count of gumballs.  Had the teacher selected hypothesis C above – perhaps I could have explained how I did this to the kids – showed an example of measuring concretions being formed into a housing brick in Africa, and how I pulled off the guess.

But, it is better that schools teach the false form of skepticism instead, right? Don’t step outside of the rules of expectations, there is no way to get the correct amount. There are penalties if you do. There is no such thing as a cure for cancer or IBS, if you feel bad it is a panic attack, supplements are all evil, there is no such thing as a spirit realm, there is no such thing as ghosts, there is no such thing as…. – All easy pat, Occam’s Razor compliant answers.

‘Occam’s Razor’ says that the simplest explanation is that 143 is a hard count to guess, and cannot be guessed realistically, right? Something is up, if it is indeed guessed. Implicit in such a claim is a boast that I personally, hold the full domain knowledge of potentiality and likelihood. This is a common Social Skeptic implicit claim. The pitfall of the fake skeptic: I fail to be a skeptic of myself. Well the simple facts is, that sometimes, simple, is an extraordinary claim itself.

Your effort will not be regarded as valid if you do not fit this errant version of ‘Occam’s Razor’ – simple contention – complicated-ness in knowing.  When one extrapolates this claim to Hypothesis B (see The MiHoDeAL Claim and The Appeal to Skepticism Fallacy), to apply to a whole domain of subjects they seek to discredit, under an air of authority as a skeptic – one is performing under Corber’s Burden. Under this burden, the skeptic must therefore always be right. Always. Or tender the appearance of doing so. Such is the enormous burden, the implicit claim, of the fake skeptic.

The Burden of Proof (exhibited in the oft-applied gumball analogy)

Which brings up the whole subject of the Philosophical Burden of Proof, which differs from a legal burden of proof regarding innocence.¹ When is a claim under the burden of proof, and when is it not? And when does a claim enjoy a lack of burden of proof simply because it is non-sequitur? In general, when one makes a claim to veracity (not a call for sponsorship and research – that is different) – in other words, one makes a claim that they are correct – the burden of proof falls upon them.  If I spot a big hairy man-like ‘thing’ in the forest and then make the call for more research on the observation – I am NOT MAKING A CLAIM. Rather simply calling for research – as I have no claim, save for being shocked by observing something paradigm shattering for which I have no explanation. This could be a person putting themselves in danger inside a costume, or it could be similar to what others of credible background have observed.  It is not a claim.  A claim, is a claim to empirical or analytical authority – that all must now accept as establishment of fact, reason, rationality or critical thinking – that which I am contending is substantiated by the evidence.

But with regard to the gumballs in our classroom anecdote above:

gumball analogy - CopyClaims Which Bear a Burden of Proof – regarding the gumballs to the right

  • There are 143 gumballs
  • There are an odd number of gumballs
  • There are an even number of gumballs
  • There are only red white and blue gumballs
  • There are no green gumballs
  • There is something besides gumballs in this mix
  • People who have observed green gumballs are liars
  • People who claim to have seen green gumballs are suffering memory suggestiveness
  • Observations of green gumballs are only anecdote
  • There are not an even number of gumballs
  • There are not an odd number of gumballs
  • We cannot see some gumballs currently

note that bullet points 2 and 3 above stand as an example of plurality under Ockham’s Razor

Claims Which are Non-Sequitur – they fail or skip large parts of the scientific method and cannot yet be contended or even asked

  • There are not 143 gumballs
  • The mix of red white and blue gumballs remains the same throughout those we cannot see
  • People who believe in green gumballs are credulous
  • We see an even number of gumballs, therefore the total of all gumballs is even
  • There are all sorts of gumballs of varying colors
  • There are only gumballs in this jar
  • People who attend church believe in green gumballs
  • Observations of green gumballs are pareidolia
  • Gumballs taste rancid
  • Gumballs can only be observed by a specific gumball expert team
  • Gumball skeptics are critical thinkers
  • Science does not have any evidence for green gumballs
  • Gumballs are pseudoscience
  • Gumballs are inter-dimensional and therefore hard to find
  • Dead body gumballs are necessary before I look beyond the visible ones
  • Skepticism tells me there are only red blue and white gumballs
  • The universe is so large that there must be green gumballs
  • Richard Dawkins has disproved all non red white or blue gumballs
  • Green gumballs do not exist
  • I hold the unambiguous definition of what is a gumball
  • Science holds the unambiguous definition of what is a gumball
  • There are no gumballs
  • There are no more red gumballs than what we see here, the rest are all blue and white

Claims Which are No Longer Under a Burden of Proof – established by empirical observation

  • There are 17 blue gumballs visible
  • We see an even number of gumballs (and recognize some dissent)
  • There are at least three colors of gumballs
  • Reality does not contain an empty set of gumballs
  • There are more than 0 gumballs
  • Gumballs are seen by more than one credible observing authority

In the end, is it not easier to skip a claim to knowledge and let the data accrue on its own, before one begins to invest in large grand scenarios of skepticism or launch into fanciful pathways of non-sequitur entertainment?  Or perhaps – best put, let ideas falsify themselves through accrued verity – not personal brilliance and experience.

Such is the nature of Ethical Skepticism. Man, now I am craving gumball.

TES Signature


¹  Philosophic Burden of Proof, Wikipedia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

August 25, 2015 Posted by | Institutional Mandates, Argument Fallacies | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Oh, Those Darned Narcissists

you are a narcissist - Copy

.


How dare they. Why can’t they do as they are instructed? Everyone knows that following the instructions is the first rule in rational thinking. Keep your head down, be diligent, pragmatic, humble and do as you are told.
These damned narcissist Americans.

.

.

Chris Norman, British Citizen and hero on FrenchRail Amsterdam to Paris.
“I heard some kind of sound. I then stood up to see what was happening. I saw a man with, what I think, was an AK-47. Anyway it was some kind of machine gun or submachine gun. So, my first reaction was to sit down and hide.
But then I heard one guy, an American say “Go get him!” and another American say “Don’t you do that buddy!” or something like that, I think that was it. So then, I decided perhaps it was really the only time, or chance to act as a team, and try to take over the terrorist.”
Well done gentlemen.
 .
TES Signature

August 22, 2015 Posted by | Social Disdain | , , , , | Leave a comment

The Four Types of Null Hypothesis Fallacy

Defending the integrity of the methods of science is not the same thing as tendering conclusions in lieu of science. Ethical Skeptics get this, fake skeptics do not. An additional litmus test with respect to being able to tell a fake skeptic from a real one, can be found in how they regard disposition of a null hypothesis inside hypothesis reduction theory. Do they conflate statistical hypothesis reduction with scientific hypothesis reduction? Do they employ the incorrect null hypothesis? One might be surprised to find that even in the disciplined halls of institutional science, abuse of the null hypothesis is one of the most common forms of pseudoscience.

There's no such thing as...The basic definition of the null hypothesis (H0) is as the preeminent and referential member of the mutually exclusive set of options to a sponsored alternative hypothesis (H1). In statistical hypothesis testing and often experimental testing, they are opposites. In scientific hypothesis reduction, this is not necessarily the case; often the two residing only as mutually exclusive ideas, and not necessarily representative of the entire domain of potentiality. The alternative hypothesis is the contention which is being tested for merit, which could serve to falsify the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the contention which is assumed to be the standard against which the alternative is to be evaluated. The null however is not assumed to be true in a hypothesis reduction (series of hypothesis tests and eliminations), neither in advance of nor after testing completion in which an alternative fails. The null hypothesis is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify. This misconception of the null hypothesis standing as the currently ‘true’ hypothesis stems from its oft framing as the the most familiar and accepted view of a contention, or

  • the common view of something,
  • the accepted view of something,
  • the historical view of something.

Often as well, in the instance when a common view of something is not held, reduction may be assembled in terms of a null hypothesis which is

  • the parsimonious alternative (least complicated, predicate dependent or feature-stacked).

None of this qualification for the null hypothesis amounts to anything which would pass a Popper Demarcation test for falsification based science by any means.  Which introduces the circumstance when, despite the array of predictive and suggestive evidence (or Promotion), when the predictive alternative cannot ethically be promoted to status as the null hypothesis. Specifically, when the ramifications of a hypothesis dictate conservancy in its application; say, regarding an idea’s safety or potential disruption of science or society for instance, the null hypothesis is that which defends such risk, or

  • the alternative which introduces the least external risk in its application.

In the past in my labs, when introducing a new material for industrial component fabrication or compounding, even though the constituents of the altered material might be commonly assumed to be safe or might present the most parsimonious view of complexity with respect to the solution it entailed, we would default to the null hypothesis citing that the compound is potentially human health impacting until rigorously proved otherwise (see Error of the Guilty Null below). Many of our products never made it to market because we could not answer this question sufficiently.  The guilty null ruled in that case.

Food science ethically is practiced under the Guilty Null ethic. Food is guilty until proved innocent. This may be a pain in the ass, might piss off stockholders and irritate fake academic payroll skeptics and impatient executives. But presuming to tamper with the substances that all of us consume, 3 times a day for life, demands a much higher level of scientific rigor than many social epistemologists are willing to tolerate. Certainly more than the 3 years of study it took to approve glyphosate, for instance.

Under this null hypothesis ethic, we would then seek to nullify the idea that the material presented a health or well being danger, in both short and long term use. This null hypothesis framing can also be seen as a form of parsimony itself; as risk, is indeed also a form of complicated-ness (not complexity).

Conflating Statistical/Experimental and Theoretical Hypothesis Framing

Type I and II Error Fallacy Innocent Null - Copy - Copy - Copy

In general, an experiment conclusion always refers to the null, rejecting or accepting H0 rather than H1. The null hypothesis stands in the crucible. In statistical analyses however, often we do test a circumstance where H0 is indeed constrained to the outcomes true or not true. The conflation of statistical theory inside diagnostic hypothesis evaluation, with the broader set of science hypothesis reduction, often lends to confusion in broader hypothesis reduction practice. Not every experiment can be evaluated through the employment of p-value delimited distribution curves; nor can a μ0 = μ1 circumstance always be identified. One such example can be seen here with respect to the understanding and employment of type I and II errors inappropriately applied outside the constrained context of a statistical test.

Wikipedia cites regarding type I and type II null hypothesis testing errors:

In statistical hypothesis testing, a type I error is the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis (a “false positive”), while a type II error is the failure to reject a false null hypothesis (a “false negative”).¹

This principle is incorrect however, when being applied to theoretical hypotheses.

In broader theoretical hypothesis reduction a false positive and false negative impart no disposition whatsoever to the veracity of the null hypothesis; only the signal which was measured regarding the alternative hypothesis. Confusing the domain of statistical hypothesis testing with the larger practice of scientific hypothesis reduction is a principal tactic of social epistemologists. In logic, as opposed to statistics, the null hypothesis remains in a moot disposition under both a false positive and a false negative condition – and is not therefore assumed true – in scientific hypothesis reduction. In science, as apposed to constrained statistic set theory, when a type I or II error is introduced, a further disposition of the null hypothesis must be separately indicated. If such type I and II error theory is to be correctly framed inside the context of scientific testing, it should read:

In scientific hypothesis testing, a false positive outcome is the incorrect rejection of the null hypothesis which further can lead to a type I error, the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis. While a false negative outcome is the incorrect elimination of an alternative which can further lead to a type II error, the failure to reject a false null hypothesis.

Null hypothesis error type and separately an alternative hypothesis’s status as false negative or positive are not the same thing. To force the two outcome dispositions to indeed constitute the same logical equivalent of a type I or type II error constitutes exercise of decision theory inside a bifurcation fallacy. I have observed a cadre of clinical neurologists speak often of examples of type I and II errors, inexpertly identifying cases wherein the two options are not opposites. Ideally, when constructing a critical path for experimentation, one should seek to establish a reductive/deductive series of opposite Bayesian inference tests in which a posterior inference can be drawn.  But this is less often the reality. Most errors in scientific testing result relate to controls or constraints (CC), measure (M) or significance (S) errors.  A great summation of this principle from even a statistical testing standpoint can be found here: Never Found a type I or II error (Science Modeling, Casual Inference and Social Science).

This principle, the abuse of type I and II error contexts, is displayed in the graphic above, where such a bifurcation is shown to be enacted through an implicit argument from ignorance or fallacy of negative composition. Categorization of a hypothesis testing, outside of Bayesian theory, to have constituted a type I or type II error is a disposition that can be assigned only after the hypothesis reduction has been completed in finality. Never before. But you will find social epistemologists swinging the term inside pluralistic arguments like they were an erstwhile major league batter of science.

A principle method of deception-by-pretense employed by social epistemologists (Social Skeptics) is the prejudicial framing of arguments as constituting type I and type II errors, while indeed the science is still ongoing inside a hypothesis reduction. This is pseudoscience. Be very wary of a Social Skeptic who over-employs the type I and type II error disposition in social discourse.

Type I and II Error Abuse Fallacies

By forcing a false positive or negative, or spinning alternative outcomes inside a diagnostic or statistical ‘true or not true‘ theory basis, to therefore imply without sufficient evidence a conclusive hypothesis reduction, of the nature of a type I or II error, I have committed:

Argument from Ignorance

/logic : fallacy of argument/ : asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, or is false because it has not been shown to have any evidence.

Science has found no proof of intelligent life nearby us in space, therefore intelligent life does not exist nearby us in space.

Science, despite its best efforts, cannot disprove the concept of existence of a god, therefore God exists.

Proof by Negative Composition

/logic : fallacy of argument/ : disproof of tenets inside an opponent’s idea or of the idea itself stands as proof of my own idea or argument.

Discrediting of the Piltdown Man fossilized remains as a paleoanthropological hoax, demonstrates that evolution is a fraud and stands as a proof of the validity of Creation Theory.

Invalid Null or Omega Hypothesis of a Social Epistemologist

Apparent Coherency - CopyAn additional form of pseudoscience which fails the Popper Demarcation principle, can be found in the practices regarding the employment of an invalid null hypothesis, HΩ. The creation and unmerited protection of the Omega Hypothesis constitutes a form of hypoepistemology which is spun through practices of Inverse negation fallacy, and corruption of the standards and methods of science. Through these practices of social epistemology, an apparent coherence can be spun around a particular view of a subject, and protection by the corrupted institutions of science afforded until such time as a Kuhn Paradigm Shift is able to be precipitated. Sadly, this often only occurs upon the death of the key social epistemologists involved.

Omega Hypothesis (HΩ)

/philosophy : pseudoscience : social epistemology : apparent coherency/ : an invalid null hypothesis or a preferred idea inside a social epistemology. A hypothesis which is defined to end the argument without due scientific rigor, is afforded unmerited protection or assignment as the null. The surreptitiously held and promoted idea or the hypothesis protected by an Inverse Negation Fallacy. Often one which is promoted as true by default, with the knowledge in mind that falsification will be very hard or next to impossible to achieve.

Omeaga Hypothesis - CopyAll the above a set of practice which abrogates a Popperian view of the threshold and rigor of adequate science, relying instead on the promotion of an invalid null hypothesis (HΩ) through academic inertia, ignorance of the discipline, promotification science, social skeptic campaigns or corporate pressure.

Assignment of the incorrect null is in reality a form of asking the wrong or begged question under the scientific method. I can prejudice the results of science by tampering with that which is assumed as its null. Specifically, this entails several forms of favoring a null hypothesis by assigning it unmerited status as the null hypothesis through a series of non discriminating, but sciency-looking predictive tests, – promotification or King of the Hill science practices – and moreover, through ‘parsimony’ or ‘Occam’s Razor’ default, granting the incorrect null unmerited status as generally accepted scientific theory until such time as the monumental task of disproving it, is achieved. There are two forms of such tampering with the null hypothesis:

Error of the Default Null

/philosophy : pseudoscience : incorrect hypothesis testing/ : a variation of argument from ignorance. The practice of assigning a favored or untestable/unfalsifiable hypothesis unmerited status as the null hypothesis. Further then proclaiming the Default Null to be the prevailing conclusion of science until such testing is conducted which could prove it to be false or until such time as it can be defeated by new competing science.

Since science has conducted no research into the possible existence of a spiritual realm, therefore the spiritual realm exists, stands as the null hypothesis until such time as this can be disproved by science.

Consciousness is material monist in origination.

Running promotification tests supporting an idea when test data falsifying that idea already exists.

I possess an accurate definition of the term God.

I possess credible science and resources regarding representation of scientific consensus.

Science has ‘found no evidence’ regarding the existence of a spiritual realm, therefore no investigation should be conducted until such time that absolute proof is obtained.

A suspect in a very difficult legal case should be considered guilty until such time as he is able to prove he is innocent.

A subject is considered a pseudo-science until such time as it can be proved real.

Error of the Guilty Null

/philosophy : pseudoscience : incorrect hypothesis testing/ : the practice of assigning a favored hypothesis the status as null hypothesis, when in fact the hypothesis involves a feature or implication which would dictate its address as an alternative hypothesis instead.  A null hypothesis which is, by risk or impact, considered potentially harmful until proved innocent, should be treated as an alternative under correct parsimony. Further then invalidly proclaiming this Guilty Null to be the prevailing conclusion of science until such testing is conducted which could prove it to be false or until such time as it can be defeated by new competing science.

A new crop control pesticide is safe for human consumption until proved by science to be harmful/inflammation inducing.

DNA and protein chains from food never make it past the human digestive barrier so therefore polynucleotides and protein chain based hormones added to animal stocks do not impact human endocrine systems.

Light dimming switches are safe for consumers until such time as house fires can be objectively linked beyond correlation, to their introduction into the market.

The standard of testing of safety for a compound which is applied topically or ingested occasionally, should be the same standard applied for a compound which is ingested daily/regularly.

Keep a sharp eye out for both the type I and II error claims as well as practices of King of the Hill pseudoscience, as such fallacies inside of hypothesis reduction regularly occur inside science as well as the social discourse. Both fallacy sets can masquerade as real science if keen minds are not watching the candy store. In essence, deployment of the two forms of the Omega Hypothesis stands as a way of interceding on behalf of science. By skeptically upstaging science I can therefore pretend to speak on behalf of science by socially corrupting its methods.

Ethical Skepticism Litmus

As an Ethical Skeptic, you are the one tasked with maintaining a discriminating mind with regard to process. No, you are not claiming to represent science or its conclusions. But one can as a skeptic indeed take a stand to defend the method of science when one observes it being abrogated. This is what the term ‘ethics’ means, an allegiance to a standard of practice – and not an allegiance to a particular set of outcomes, or categories of thought one considers socially valid or invalid.

Protecting the integrity of the methods of science is not the same thing as tendering conclusions in lieu of science.

This differentiation is a key litmus test in being able to tell who is a fake and a real skeptic.  Real skeptics get this difference. False skeptics do not.

TES Signature


¹  Wikipedia: Type I and type II errors, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors.

August 17, 2015 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Institutional Mandates | , , , , , | Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: