The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

Quashing Study of Ancient Artifacts Violates a Basic Human Right

Public access to study artifacts which serve to illuminate mankind’s social, morphological and genetic history should not be denied based upon property conventions of any tribe, culture, owner, propriety, government, nation, intelligence group or institution. Knowledge is a basic human right; and in particular, it is a basic human right to access freely the knowledge of where mankind came from and the pathway which brought us here as a species.
The Atacama Mummy is the prior art property of all of mankind and not of a single trivial haplogroup, nation or organization. Our understanding of such matters of science ethics urgently needs to evolve.

I read an article today written by a group of social skeptics, concerning a recent study of the Atacama ‘Mummy’. Ata, as she is called in short, is the 6 inch long anomalous preterm foetus, mostly human female skeleton, analyzed inside the following, unprecedented study:

Bhattacharya et al.; Whole-genome sequencing of Atacama skeleton shows novel mutations linked with dysplasia; Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press: Genome Research; March 22, 2018, doi: 10.1101/gr.223693.117 Genome Res. 2018. 28: 423-431; 2018;

A critique article (not a study) was pre-released this week, which concerned me ethically a great deal. This regards an aspect of human rights which I have been contemplating over the last three decades of private interest work. The article was authored by a group of social skeptics obviously upset by the astounding nature of the original Bhattacharya Study above. A knee-jerk form of anger with which I have been long acquainted inside my study of fake skepticism.

Halcrow et al.; On engagement with anthropology: A critical evaluation of skeletal and developmental abnormalities in the Atacama preterm baby and issues of forensic and bioarchaeological research ethics. Response to Bhattacharya et al. “Whole-genome sequencing of Atacama skeleton shows novel mutations linked with dysplasia”; Genome Research, 2018, 28: 423–431. Doi: 10.1101/gr.223693.117;

The Halcrow Article

The Halcrow Article made a number of boasts, complimented by several apparently valid objections related to the morphological expression of various genetic conditions contended inside the Bhattacharya Study. I am not an expert in such matters so I will not comment technically upon them; however, I am an expert in the ethical philosophy of science and skepticism. The article attempts to brand itself as a scientific study by raising peer-review styled questions regarding these purported bone morphologies and in relation to our current understanding of the genes which influence them. Doubt employed as a disguise. Like a dude trying to dress up as a hott chick in order to gain entry into a fashionable nightclub. They did not pull it off well – heck, even a layman like me caught it. The real purpose of the article was to slip its supplemental fluff opinion segments by as if they were peer reviewed outcomes of science. This was not a refutation of the core Bhattacharya Study analysis (see below), as Forbes (a notorious fake ‘science communication’ outlet) inexpertly contends in the propaganda piece referred to on the right, rather only a questioning of peripheral morphological analyses and the overall age of the creature when it died.  Aside from these observations, the article is disingenuous and dishonest (this will not be the only time) in this hybrid-costumed approach – attempting to pass off social agendas, nestled inside of and pretending to also constitute real science or peer review.

Moreover, below I have outlined a couple comments from within the fluff opinion sections of the Halcrow Article which should greatly concern us all.

“Although this testing was not sensu stricto necessary, once her humanity was confirmed, analysis should have stopped and her body should have been repatriated to Chile.”

This is not true. In fact this is an ethically ludicrous assertion. A false morality which we must face down and overturn as humankind. Regardless of the artifact’s provenance, DNA maintains first precedent among the epistemological resources available to mankind. The morphology of the skeleton has raised Ockham’s Razor plurality, so in ‘sensu stricto’ the testing was indeed necessary. The artifact remains should be repatriated to Chile and the applicable native South American tribe, only once a full set of study has been completed, AND samples are retained for future, more highly advanced, DNA analysis. This is how ethical science works inside the context of human rights. Human right to the truth contained in DNA, takes precedent over any institution, tribe, government or other social virtue agenda. The right parties will eventually get their mummy – but they do not have the right in the meantime to withhold vital information from mankind. This would constitute a form of racial bigotry in its enforcement.

The artifact exists in a temporarily indivisible duality: it is simultaneously both a physical object and a public domain information set. The asset or cultural ‘owner’ of the artifact only owns the physical item; they do not own the information which it contains – nor do they bear the right to restrict access to such information. This is a type of easement, similar to a property easement which is administered for the benefit of everyone, and not just the property title holder. Each of these dual entities involves differing legal, moral and ethical implications; and until they are separated by study and documentation of the contained intelligence into the public domain, no one party can claim authority over both sides of this unique duality. Lawyers, are you listening? Because such a case is going to be tried, and eventually won. ~TES

Nonetheless, let’s continue on with the next in the series of ridiculous and oppressive contentions.

“In the case of Ata, costly and time-consuming scientific testing using whole genome techniques was unnecessary and unethical.”

This is also not true. Aside from the fact that humans lie and DNA does not, the cost and time involved in whole genome sequencing is not anything near its recent past levels. The authors admit themselves that “only one of us (MK) is a specialist in human genomics”. Has Michael Knapp been involved in any genome sequencing lately? I have. I have paid for or helped fund several studies. The first one cost nearly $250,000. That, a mere pittance in comparison to the knowledge gained. However, such studies are a mere fraction of the cost and effort involved even 5 years ago – equating to somewhere around $4,000 to draft sequence an entire human genome today.1 Where has this guy been? Where has this team been?

Unnecessary? To the ‘researchers’ assembled for this study, apparently there was no connection between an unprecedented morphological being and an unprecedented DNA whole genome sequence. The two should have never been studied in the first place. Apparently, science should never begin by surveying the environment and asking a question, rather should begin by ignoring the environment and tendering answers (as pretend studies).

Unethical? Unethical to whom? A close genetically related haplogroup of today? That is scientifically questionable, and is often racially bigoted in its exercise. The Government of Chile? That is even more questionable. I am not sure that their rights to do what they will with an artifact (information) – outlast the rights of humanity to access knowledge about its own origins or progression as a species. Again, men lie. They need to be held accountable, and no level of virtue ethics spinning can countermand the rights of the rest of humanity on this and similar matters. No one may possess the right, to deny the rights of others by means of information control. And let’s be clear, this find is information – as a priority over its being a dead being. It is intelligence. It is the prior art property of all of mankind and not of a single tribe or nation. Its physical ownership or putative genetic affiliations stand as secondary, or even tertiary in importance.

So, based upon the ridiculous attempts exhibited in this article at squelching knowledge through an appeal to authority, let’s establish a normative of ethical skepticism now:


Basic Human Right to Knowledge of Mankind’s Origins and Progression

/philosophy : human rights/ : Public access to study artifacts serving to illuminate mankind’s social, morphological and genetic history should not be denied based upon property conventions of any haplogroup, culture, owner, propriety, government, nation, intelligence group or institution. Knowledge is a basic human right; and in particular, it is a basic human right to access freely the knowledge of where mankind came from and the pathway which brought us here as a species. The Artifacts involved in such study are the property of mankind before they are the property or propriety of any and all other entities. Public access to objective physical, morphological, phenomenological and DNA study is the first duty of all paleontology and archaeology.

A.  The free study of found artifacts should not be impinged based upon provenance alone, provided that such artifacts are eventually retired to their cultural owners. Cultural or national propriety over found artifacts only takes precedence once all appropriate study has been completed and communicated into the public domain.

B.  The knowledge of any hybrid, exceptional, novel, extra or ultra-terrestrial, technological, extinct, predecessor or otherwise equal or advanced intervening culture of any form, whether past or present, shall not be the property of any single or collective group based upon haplogroup, culture, property, propriety, government, nation, intelligence group or institution. Such knowledge is, as the supreme and immediate priority, the irrevocable property of mankind.

C.  Access to such knowledge shall not be denied, and no law shall be written nor considered legally binding, which restricts the free access thereof.


Now that my channel with Thomas Jefferson has ended, let us continue with the litany of ridiculous information-squelching contentions made inside this hit-piece.

“We caution DNA researchers about getting involved in cases that lack clear context and legality, or where the remains have resided in private collections.”

No, we caution you Halcrow, et al. You are overstepping your bounds, and into an imperious display of religious bias and incompetence. The reality of ‘lack of context’ you identify here is wholly and solely the fault of your Cabal; which is irrationally interested in suppressing information based upon its source, channel and implication. This responsibility involves a principle which your cadre of fake skeptics consistently fails to grasp, Haspel’s Paradox.

Haspel’s Paradox – a suppressed idea mutates to ever more virulent forms, these are then invoked to justify its continued suppression.

We can make any law – that does not mean we cannot work ethically to change oppressive ignorance-promoting laws. See the above statement on human rights to knowledge. You do not own this right to develop & qualify information. You hold no right to caution anyone. Neither does a tribe or nation own this artifact, ethically. Humanity does.

You guys in academic socialism are just going to have to get used to private collections, as they are a reality and in part, your fault. Private collections are an expression of mistrust, on the part of individuals who know that your Cabal lies on a regular basis, and want to know the truth, if only for themselves. If we can use their contained artifacts for study and the owner recognizes that they own the ‘piece’ and not its information – well possibly that beneficial understanding might just stem from our new ethical view on the matter (as outlined in this blog).  But such understanding on the part of private collection owners will never come about with the Halcrow et al.’s of the world threatening them with loss of their property and with warnings to DNA researchers. These are actions of social skepticism. Knowledge will ironically be obfuscated ‘because of science’. Anything short of this new realization, then the ‘owners’ are doing nothing different than is the ‘country’. They will both continue claiming to own – and more importantly hide from analysis – that which is not theirs to hold in the first place.

“In the end, even the novel genetic variations discovered in Ata’s genome are of uncertain significance.”

Given the context of the article, I find the statement that Ata’s genome is of ‘uncertain significance’ to not be credible. It is deceptively and equivocally worded. The article makes it clear that the genome study was unnecessary and of null significance in the eyes of the authors – so this statement was a lie. The equivocal statement only serves to engender mistrust at this point, tucked away at the end of the article and worded so as to appear unbiased and objective. Bullshit. I do not believe you. And dear reader, please recall that the article authors tried to pass these types of statements off as peer reviewed outcomes of science, by tucking them inside a technical review of bone/DNA morphologies. Contending or implying that there was no connection between an unprecedented morphological being and an unprecedented DNA whole genome sequence inside a study masquerade, constitutes incompetence and desire to deceive, on a grand scale.

DNA Does Not Lie – Scientists However Do

Moreover, these large-scale single nucleotide, block indel and structural variants in no way constitute simple ‘novel genetic variations’ as the article frames them; rather they involve [Bhattacharya et al.; Whole-genome sequencing…]:

i.  3,356,569 single nucleotide variations (SNVs),

ii.  518,365 insertions and deletions (indels), and

iii.  1047 structural variations (SVs) were detected as compared to a human reference genome.

None of this was even mentioned in the Halcrow Article. The only time it was alluded to, the above variance was downplayed as part of a desperate grasp at the plausible deniability of ‘nitrate exposure’ and to question the haplogroup and human they used as the genomic reference. In other words, desperate rhetoric. Again, show me the precedent for such large scale and functional ‘mutation’. To make the implication that this is not a mystery is just plain old agenda-spinning ignorance. To suggest that no morphological feature of this artifact should have served to raise a scientific question at all, is corrupt in its crafting. The DNA simply serves to confirm this.

In order to place this DNA divergence into perspective – this genetic distance represents slightly more than the separation break between Homo sapiens and Neanderthal, at about 3 million base pairs.2 This represents 300,000 years differential evolution at the Scally/Sykes rate of genetic mutation.3 4 Three hundred millennia of evolution comprised inside one single generation of in-species birth. Technically, we encountered a completely new species of man in the case of Ata. However, we panicked so badly as to how to spin this information for damage control (as are the Halcrow Article authors now), we failed to take note of the scientific observation. An observation just as exotic in nature as the discovery of Denisova hominins, Homo naledi, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo floresiensis. Finding human DNA inside a set of remains, does not logically constrain our conclusion therefore to that of the remains being modern human, as the article has incorrectly contended. Each of the four predecessors just listed, as it turns out all have human DNA in them – this does not serve to make them modern Homo sapiens.

The study of this little mostly human foetus could serve to turn our understanding of the mechanisms underpinning evolution upon its ear, or advance us decades into the future of our understanding of speciation. Yet, we think it is ethical to bury this evidence back in the ground. Much like having the Royal Navy sink Darwin’s ship HMS Beagle, replete with all his work, because it did not pay its port departure fee. I swoon at such virtuous action!

Halcrow Article experts, query your human genetic representative, Michael Knapp. Have him email me with even ONE SINGLE precedent for a single generation mutation which has attained this level of variance from its parental genome – and lived long enough to be analyzed as a creature for that matter. In fact, I challenge all the study authors to explain to me – one highly involved in genetic studies, just how this 3.4 million SNV genetic distance was attained in a single generational reproductive context. I await your expert response.

My email is

Men lie, organizations lie, skeptics lie, scientists lie, intelligence agencies lie, governments lie. Even tribes will lie in order to obtain compensation. None of these entities can be entrusted with authority over a basic human right. This is not how human rights work – they are not granted nor administered at the discretion and under approval of a group of humans. Even if the humans claim to represent science, or scientists. We have learned this from our fake skepticism movement – trust must reside in the strictures of procedure, and not in the hands of men. We left the days of rule by demi-god and royalty centuries ago. It is time we abandon the draconian practices of information control in the name of fake third world virtue as well. Mankind bears the legacy of this mandated ignorance even now, its cat-o-nine stripes emblazoned across our collective backs. It is time we evolve as a species – face our foibles, face with courage the information which is buried in our institutional vaults and under our feet. As one species and not as a group of privileged tribal interests.

DNA does not lie. This avenue of integrity is where we owe our first allegiance. Humanity is where we owe our overarching fealty; nowhere else – especially in the case of ad hoc ethics adopted as a pretense employed to rob humanity of its past and squelch the spread of information we do not like.

epoché vanguards gnosis


How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “Quashing Study of Ancient Artifacts Violates a Basic Human Right” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 21 Jul 2018; Web,

July 21, 2018 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda | , , | 1 Comment

Abuse of the Ad Hoc ‘Fallacy’

By domain definition, something which is critical path in argument can never be fallaciously ad hoc, even if not readily addressable by evidence. Beware of those who do not get this. The sad reality is that, contrary to their memorized talking points, social skeptics exercise an implicit definition of ad hoc fallacy which is – ‘a bucket in which I place every counter explanation, evidence or claim which defends a subject I do not like’. Ironically exposing the fake skeptic’s inability to handle critical path logic in the first place.

I just finished reading a series of articles by various social skeptics, purporting to explain the ‘ad hoc‘ rescue or ‘ad hoc‘ fallacy as it is sometimes called. The various definitions tendered include a variety of spins on the concept of basically arguing through Making Shit Up (MSU). This comes close enough I suppose, but for me, being a philosopher and having struggled through the prosecution of real scientific questions and real patents, much unlike our cabal of social skeptics, I demand a bit more rigor in my Wittgenstein. Let’s examine one of those purported definitions of the ad hoc rescue:

I need to spend a few minutes explaining an extremely common logical fallacy among flat earthers (and creationists, anti-vaccers, etc.). This is what is known as an ad hoc fallacy. Unlike most fallacies, this does not occur as part of an argument, but rather as part of a counterargument. It arises when someone is faced with evidence that contradicts their view, and they respond by inventing a solution for which there is no evidence. In other words, they invent a response that you would never accept unless you were already convinced of their view. It also often has the property of being unfalsifiable. In other words, it is something that cannot actually be tested and must be accepted on faith.1

Before we begin, let me make a couple things clear. I am not a flat Earther, nor a creationist, nor am I anti-vaccine (although in full disclosure I do have a child permanent encephalopathy-disabled by the pertussis vaccine – fake skeptics you can stop reading here and continue to cocoon inside your self-aggrandizing ignorance). So my purpose is not to defend those movements in this blog article. Fake skeptics will spin any word of caution as ‘anti-ism’ (itself a failure of critical path logic), and that is simply a social foible which the rest of humanity has learned to expect from them. But I do bristle at the ways in which social skeptics go about bucket condemning subjects and abusing philosophy in the process, and in support of their political goals. Where else will these false philosophies and methods be applied, in order to condemn a subject which does bear merit?

The author above (his identity is not my focus here, I am sure he is a fine person) begins his blog title with the incorrect but trendy technique of not capitalizing the title of the article; a fad introduced by persons wishing to appear as if they were publishing a scientific study (a style used by some journals). The pretense includes his failure to capitalize the word ‘Earth’ at all (as in ‘The Earth’ and not ‘dirt’).2 Aside from this, the author tenders a half-correct framing of the principle of ad hoc response; moreover one which constitutes also a Bridgman reduction and permissive argument framing. A very common technique in most social-political circles. The reconstruction of a principle into a version which is ‘simple’, such that sycophants can understand it, but the crafting of which also mis-defines and encourages abuse or misapplication of the principle itself. In other words a political ‘fallacy’, and not one of science nor skepticism.

Where the author is correct

An ad hoc rescue is a defensive response to a challenge in argument or evidence, which is ignoratio elenchi and serves to divert or distract a discussion into a domain inside which claims can no longer be discriminated. This much of his definition is true.

“John still loves me, I just know it.”

“But John is living with Lisa now, and has been for months!”

“He is just doing that to make me jealous.” <– the ad hoc rescue (litmus: non-critical path and cannot be differentiated from something just made up)

But he is failing to discriminate important principles with regard to the nature of non-ad hoc assertions, exhibited thusly:

“John said he is sending me a note, and wants to meet for dinner next Thursday.” <– this is not ad hoc (she might be mistaken in conclusion, but she poses a testable and more importantly, critical path)

Most commonly, the ad hoc fallacy accusation is misapplied to the equivalent of the last sentence in this example. The author of the definition above has hinted that he has not grappled with this fallacy inside an actual complex argument of plurality, say like in a professional lab setting; as opposed to an argument of political symbology like flat Earth, vaccine risk or Bigfoot ‘skepticism’. As a side note, I am not entirely convinced that real flat Earth believers even exist – rather they are simply applying akratic trolling, purposely irritating skeptics by using the very methods (methodical cynicism) taught by their Cabal.  Ironically demonstrating that such sciencey-sounding protocols can and do lead to very errant socialized conclusions. Flat Earther’s are following the Carl Sagan Baloney Detection Kit, step by step fake skeptics. Get used to it. These are the eggs you laid in the 60’s and 70’s, and the chickens are just now starting to come home to roost. When you use Bridgman Reduction to craft methods which can be used to debunk anything, expect anything to be debunked by those same methods. Even your pet ideas. Skeptics, you need to up your game, if we are all to prevent such deleterious uses of your protocols. This is one reason why your movement is disintegrating – you do not really understand the principles which you employ in your high-caliber doctrine rifles. This is a very hilarious play to us philosophers.

Your methods and you yourself social skeptic, are being mocked by flat Earthers and you fail to even realize it.

The above definition itself however looks and sounds alright, does it not? But the trained discriminating eye of the philosopher is needed here in order to distinguish its ad hoc social and political demagoguery from real science. The author is indeed incorrect with the remainder of his definition.

Where the author is incorrect

1.  Ad hoc rescue conjectures involve responses wherein the defensive counter being made, involves a principle of non-falsifiability –  and not ‘unfalsifiability‘ as he has used. (See English Language & Usage: When is the prefix non- used versus un-).3

un – as in the ‘opposite of’ (i.e. ‘inductively/deductively true’)

non – as in ‘outside the domain of applicability’

This mistake is not a triviality of substitution – as the difference between ‘non-‘ and ‘un-‘ here relates to a principle called critical path logic. The inability to handle critical path logic such as the hyperbolic or inappropriate use of the ‘un-‘ prefix stands as a stark warning flag in a skeptic.  It is much akin to one’s claiming to be an expert in ‘Kwantum Mechanics’, – this type of mistake is not just a misspelling and does NOT constitute a trivial error. In fact, one’s skill in discerning critical path logic, determines whether or not one can even correctly discern a condition of ad hoc fallacy response to begin with (see below).

2.  An ad hoc fallacious response cannot be addressed in the here and now (not simply ‘cannot actually be tested‘), and therefore cannot realistically be differentiated from something just made up.

3.  An ad hoc fallacy does not involve something which ‘must be accepted on faith‘ by someone ‘already convinced of their view‘ – as this simply constitutes prejudicial wording which will be familiar and therefore granted automatic favor by his apothegm-trained audience. The critical principle resides in two elements:

i.  a distraction into the non-critical path (ignoratio elenchi), and

ii.  the inability to differentiate what was said, from something just made up as a response artifice or as misinformation.

This is more often the action of one who could care less about studying the issue at hand, than it is an action of a ‘true believer’. One’s acting as the sponsor of an idea is never the single qualification as to an ad hoc fallacy. This is one litmus you can use for detecting a fake skeptic. A sponsor who goes and looks is NEVER ad hoc arguing.

4.  An ad hoc fallacy is not actually a ‘fallacy of logic‘ (a fallacy in critical path logic is called a formal fallacy) – rather is an informal fallacy called ignoratio elenchi. It is a fallacy outside of logic. Some day it might logically end up being true or false – we don’t know. But in the now, it constitutes a diversion into a realm of the non-critical path. Poetically, this understanding is absolutely essential (critical path) to the principle of usage of the term ad hoc in the first place. By definition, something critical path can NEVER be ad hoc, even if currently non-addressable by study. Beware of those who do not get this – and more importantly do not get the fact that citing an informal fallacy does not stand as a disproof of an opponent’s claim nor logic.

5.  Based upon these principles alone, bucket characterizing flat Earth, creationist and vaccine injury risk proponent arguments is lazy, convenient and constitutes a false equivalence. I can probably list the other ‘ad hoc fallacy’ subjects this person would include in this bucket as well. Social skeptics bear very predictable mindsets. They carry an a priori laundry list of things they despise, and they all carry the same list. An ad hoc fallacy is not a fallacy committed by ‘anyone promoting anything which has been debunked or my club and I do not like’. As that basis is rather ad hoc in itself.

6.  Simply citing a response concern for which there currently ‘is no evidence‘, is NOT the qualification of an ad hoc fallacy. Plenty of arguments have not been studied at all. This in no way serves to make them fallaciously ‘ad hoc‘.

7.  An ad hoc fallacy is used to disqualify or warn on a particular point inside a context of dialectic or debate – and cannot be employed to condemn entire subjects inside a polemic, as the author of this mis-definition has done above (which is itself, fallaciously ad hoc). The “extremely common logical fallacy among flat earthers (sic) (and creationists, anti-vaccers, etc.” quip is a prejudicial framing without qualification merit – in other words, pseudoscience. I do not even belong to these groups, but this definition is so inexpertly wielded, with such shortcut bandwagon-esque vitriol, that my hackles begin to raise. Who is the next victim in this lazy hack job? My field of study? My company? My home and kids? Oh, that is right… clowns like this have already attacked my family and kids, I forgot. Mistakes like these are the signature traits committed by unaccountable idiots.

You will find that the ‘skeptic’ community never polices their own, nor provides any ethical peer review of its members’ drivel nor horrid actions. Any jerk or malevolent actor can become a skeptic, as long as they spout the familiar sounding jargon. Skeptics are never held accountable for anything they say and do.

This is why skeptics are losing the battle for the American mind. Americans are a sincere and open minded people for the most part – and they learn about people from their actions, and not their words.

8.  Finally, this fallacy is not ‘extremely common‘ as the author cites, without evidence. Rather it is a recourse of common use on the part of people who do not grasp elements 1 through 7 above.

The actual incidence of the ad hoc fallacy is not as great as is the instance of its unqualified accusation.

Below you will see examples as to when and why the above definition is wrong. But first, let’s examine the ad hoc fallacy itself.

ad hoc fallacy

/philosophy : rhetoric : pseudo-theory : ignoratio elenchi/ : an ignoratio elenchi response to an argument or evidence, which seeks to exploit ambiguity or non-accountability as a domain in which to craft a defense which cannot be readily distinguished from something made up. Invention of an explanation which distracts attention away from critical path logic, and/or for which evidence to the pro and con cannot be derived in the now, and/or falsification is unapproachable. A tactic of pseudo-theory and a form of rhetoric.

Despite often getting the definition right, social skeptics even more commonly fail to relate correct examples in its application. More often they extrapolate the fallacy to condemn whole subjects, and appeals on the part of those people they do not like. However, when you see these same bad philosophers exercise their skill in applying their understanding or grasp of the ad hoc fallacy (as above) – inevitably it simply comes down to the real discriminating definition that the ad hoc fallacy is

ad hoc fallacy – any counter explanation, evidence or claim which appears to defend an idea I do not like.

When ad hoc Fallacy Does Not Apply

There are several circumstances in which the ad hoc fallacy is accused, however which are not a fit – in fact, circumstances in which the claim of ad hoc pseudo-theory is just flatly wrong; flagging a condition of incompetence on the part of the contending skeptic:

A.  When the claimant is raising plurality with sufficient Ockham’s Razor basis (not ‘Occam’s Razor’).

The faking skeptic may mistakenly straw man this species of assertion as, ‘just asking the question’ on the part of the claimant. Demanding that h. pylori be studied as the potential cause of ulcers (plurality had been introduced), was not an ad hoc claim that ‘some mysterious pathogen was to blame’, as skeptics had employed in order to block science for 30 years on this issue. Evidence which inductively pointed to h. pylori‘s role in ulcers had existed for 30 years prior to science eventually dropping this idea as being ‘ad hoc‘.

B.  When the claimant is raising plurality as a stakeholder under risk.

Asking that long term cohort (to age 14 and multifaceted expression) studies be conducted on both specific vaccines and the 43+ event vaccine schedule as a whole, is not a case of ad hoc fallacy. It is otherwise normal, ethical and critical path science. Such studies are critical to the issue and have not been attempted. Such appeals for study are not ‘made up’ nor do they appeal to a domain of non-measurability. This is study we can perform as a reasonable body of science, but yet we refuse to allow or execute because of oppressive non-science political influences (such as the pretend science article from which the above definition of ad hoc fallacy originated). Understanding this is part of a skill set in critical path logic. To equate vaccine-risk study requests to flat Earth theory or creationism is simply a malevolent and lazy lie, on the part of someone who does not care about science nor humanity – only their own celebrity and club ranking. Watch this type of person to observe if they ever visibly step out of line with their club’s doctrine. Then you will witness their supposed courage and conviction of science.

C.  When the claimant is addressing the critical path of study or logic.

If a researcher proposes an alternate natural physical explanation for observed phenomena we attribute to ‘dark matter’ – just because we cannot investigate its full set of founding assumptions in the now, nor test its predictive outcomes fully, does not serve to make the professional conjecture an ad hoc rescue. The researcher may still be addressing scientific and logical critical path. They may simply dissent or disagree – but still bearing just as much accountability or credibility as the null in this case. An example of ad hoc fallacy in this context would be ‘God hides the foundational elements of the physical universe from us, so that we may focus on spiritual development as our priority’.

D.  When the claimant is addressing the critical path of study and has simply made a mistake/misinterpretation.

If a flat Earther builds a rocket ship to go up and see for himself/herself, whether or not the Earth is round or flat. This is critical path. It is not ad hoc. They may be mistaken, but they are embarking upon the pathway which will help them answer the question at hand. This is by definition, not ad hoc. Beware of those who do not get this. Going into the field to study, or asking that such be done is NEVER fallaciously ad hoc.

E.  When the claimant (even an outsider) is citing that insufficient study has been conducted (praedicate evidentia, ignoro eventum or fallacy of relative privation).

The faking skeptic may mistakenly straw man this species of assertion as, ‘just asking the question’ on the part of the claimant. Any time a sponsor is requesting that further study be done, and for particular reasons – even if anecdotal and even if in unsophisticated language or philosophy – this is not a case of fallacious ad hoc appeal. Nor does it amount to a case of Dunning-Kruger.

Typically in such circumstances, you will see fake skeptics chime in with the claim that the sponsor has appealed to conspiracy. They are a conspiracy theorist! This is lazy and shallow accusation, the appeal to implicit conspiracy. This is the ultimate form of ad hoc fallacious accusation itself, the appeal to implied conspiracy (distraction from the critical path of the argument and an accusation which can always be made, yet can never be distinguished from just being made up):

Appeal to Implicit Conspiracy

/philosophy : pseudoscience : pseudo-skepticism : ad hoc framing/ : the default position taken by a pseudo-skeptic that in order for a counter-claimant to actively research or have confidence in their proposition, then quod erat demonstrandum they must therefore believe a conspiracy exists which is holding back their preferred alternative from being studied or accepted. This default ad hoc fallacy explanation can be accused of anyone, without discretion, distracts from the logic at hand, can never be verified and results in only finding what we already think we know, to therefore be true. A substitute form of science (pseudo-theory) issued in the form of pejorative ad hominem and straw man, all rolled up into one baseless and easy claim on the part of a pseudo-skeptic.

F.  When the person making the appeal to ad hoc fallacy, does not understand the context, playing field nor critical arguments entailed. Or thinks that the identification of the fallacy entails a disproof of the opponent’s assertion on their part. Or moreover uses a single point commentary or informal fallacy to condemn an entire group of people or field of research.

War is the ultimate form of ad hoc. Everything done in warfare is adopted as tactic or strategy in order to obtain a particular and many times emergent purpose. Just because a casual observer might fail to understand what is going on inside a theater of warfare, does not mean that the ad hoc actions therein constitute ad hoc fallacies. Much of warfare, science and life in general is ad hoc by its very nature. This does not also serve therefore to make it also then fallacious.

If one uses a fly swatter to kill a fly, the fly swatter is an ad hoc design. Just because one uses it, does not mean that its use is therefore an ad hoc fallacy. If one attempts to use a sledgehammer in order to kill flies on the other hand, and never seeks to craft a fly swatter for that purpose, then that is ad hoc fallacious.

Beware of those who do not grasp the above principles, who often make the accusation of conspiracy theory, or are unskilled and symbolically habituated in their application of the ad hoc fallacy. First-resort, inexpert and clumsy artifices, employed without necessary qualification. Ironically canned, memorized and inexpertly crafted to be knee-jerk employed for a single rhetorical purpose: to kill the inconvenient flies of the opposition. Sledgehammer means by definition.

The true philosopher of science, demands more than this charade of skepticism.

epoché vanguards gnosis


How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “Abuse of the Ad Hoc ‘Fallacy’” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 19 Jul 2018; Web,

July 19, 2018 Posted by | Argument Fallacies | , | Leave a comment

Interrogative Biasing: Asking the Wrong Question in Order to Get the Right Answer

A wrong question under the scientific method is generally posed for one of two reasons: ignorance or the desire to cultivate ignorance. It is the latter motive for which the ethical skeptic must always be on guard. One learns early on inside the social skepticism movement, that in order to derive the right answer, all one need do is simply ask the wrong question.

Pseudoscience is a descriptive of method, and not of subject. The understanding of this is what differentiates the fake-skeptic from the real thing. One of the primary tactics of pseudoscience is a condition wherein a person tenders the appearance of asking a sciencey-sounding question (usually under the virtue identity of being a ‘skeptic’), while hoping that the victim against whom they are arguing does not comprehend the difference between pseudoscience and real science. The first tactic of pseudoscience is the asking of a biased or incoherent question, which tenders the appearance of being scientific in its crafting. You will be surprised that, even in the halls of established science – this trick is applied and passes peer review. The study claims run along the lines of ‘we are asking an incomplete and partially incoherent answer, and should understand the results for what they are inside that light’ – whereupon the answer is then extrapolated by social activists (social skeptics) into a set of ramifications and pervasive conclusions such studies never meant to impart. This type of study often constitutes a wild, disconnected shot in the dark – a hope for a compliant outcome, through the clever abrogation of real and plenary science.

Failure to follow critical path is a key sign of scientific fraud – even if the internal procedural protocols of a study itself are ethical. A grand statistical study, which does not follow an incremental and dependent pathway of query (in other words, specific outcomes established its sequential logical necessity under Ockham’s Razor) – is fraud dressed up in a science lab coat. It is out of sequence, bypassing much more deductive and direct-testing alternatives, employing science based upon an unsound and manipulated grand set of data – otherwise known as pseudoscience.

An example of such an Ockham’s Razor orphan form of pseudoscience can be found here:

The sincere skeptical researcher, will begin their research from a position of suspended judgement, and then proceed to ask a series of dependent and incremental questions, called a critical path. They are not overly retrophile on previous work/art, often working more as a critic of such approaches. They do not begin with grand statistical studies outside the question domain or focused on one small portion of the scientific or population domains. The onus is upon the ethical skeptic to understand this, and detect when a query seeks to combine or skip questions inside this critical path to force a compliant outcome; or worse, attempt to trick, impugn or twist ideas and people by means of ‘asking a question’. This is done for two reasons: ignorance, or the desire to cultivate ignorance. The two motivations help create each other in a social context, hence the origin of the apothegm of ethical skepticism:

Ignorance is contagious.

The latter, a desire to cultivate ignorance established by means of Verdrängung Mechanism, is practiced by social skeptics. One learns early on inside the social skepticism movement, that in order to derive the right answer, all one need do is first ask the wrong question. It is actually a very brilliant strategy; one can even practice it without knowing that fact. However, it takes a more committed, sincere and sharp acumen, in order to catch the trick which enables this symbiosis between ignorance and the cultivation of ignorance. A trick called interrogative biasing.

Interrogative Biasing

/philosophy : pseudoscience : fallacy : red herring : scientific method pretense/ : ask the wrong question and you are assured to arrive at the right answer. A method of faking science by asking an incomplete, statistical absence, non-probative, ill sequenced or straw man question, fashioned so as to achieve a result which implies a specific desired answer; yet is in no way representative of plenary or ethical science on the matter under consideration.

One can observe interrogative biasing in a number of situations. It usually comes within a context of virtue signaling on the part of the person asking the question. The virtue can be positions of social justice, claims to represent god, or claims to represent science. Interrogative biasing is the strategy of obfuscation through posing of incorrect, impugning or badly sequenced questions of science. But the tactics it typically comprises include:

1.  Querying Reliable Data and Not Probative Data

“We sought medical plan databases, and avoided cohort studies or parental reports due to the unethical or unreliable nature of such study.”

2.  Querying Flawed Means of Collection for Observations of Absence (Hempel’s Paradox)

“We examined two specific public healthcare plan databases in Denmark to observe incidence of accepted claims of plan doctor diagnoses of autism in kids 6 months to 5 years in age.”

3.  Asking a Surreptitiously Incoherent Question (Imposterlösung Mechanism)

“Please provide testable evidence for God.”

4.  Asking an Out of Sequence Question – a question which eventually should be asked, but is dependent upon other questions needed to be answered first

“What technologies will allow us to sequester carbon into ocean water?”

5.  Asking a Currently (Current Knowledge) Unaddressable Question

“If life did not originate from abiogenesis on Earth, then how did life begin?”

6.  Proof Gaming – Demanding things be ‘proven’ before science can be allowed to begin

“What if any, physical proof do you have of this persistent phenomenon (observation)?”

7.  Straw Man Question Framing

“We sought to test if therapeutic vitamin supplementation would have any impact on incidence of heart disease during a 5 year observation horizon of a group of persons.”

8.  Question Lacking in Plenary Science, Adequate or Ethical Domain

“We sought to test if the MMR vaccine was associated with higher rates of autism in Danish children (on a much lower vaccine schedule).”

9.  Trick/Ambiguous/Amphibological Question (uti dolo)

“Do you as a scientist accept the reality of climate change?”

10.  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

“Why if there is no God, is everything around us in perfect designed balance?”

11.  Eristic Question – a question posed so as to pose the recipient in the worst light

“Wasn’t your paper rejected for fraudulent scientific procedure, if I recall correctly?” (Had to correct one assumption, which did not change outcome)

12.  Convergent Semantics – a question which does not allow an answer outside a particular conclusion domain

“Have you stopped beating your wife?”

13.  Red Herring – posing an irrelevant, bucket characterization, misinforming or unsound question

“Why are supplements not controlled by the FDA in ways which scheduled drugs are?”

14.  ingens vanitatum – posing a rapid series of irrelevant questions, in order to tender the appearance of competency inside a subject. However none of the questions seem to bear any critical nature of understanding of the subject being discussed, or are posed in an illogical sequence or order.

“What was the court docket number?  Was the case heard by a state or federal judge? In what precinct was it filed?”

Become skilled at detecting such circumstances in query, and you will be amazed at how the supposed heroes of ‘skepticism’ will in your eyes, steadily become tarnished and fall from grace.

epoché vanguards gnosis


How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “Interrogative Biasing: Asking the Wrong Question in Order to Get the Right Answer” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 14 Jul 2018; Web,

July 14, 2018 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Argument Fallacies | , , | 9 Comments

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: