The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

Construct Laundering Fallacy

How do you eliminate an idea you do not like?  Call in reinforcements. Spin some authority.

One of the principal thought control and obfuscation techniques wound up in Social Skepticism (SS) is the approach of Construct Laundering.

Construct:  An original explanatory framework which has not risen to the level of Hypothesis or Theory, contending for plurality screening under Ockham’s Razor, which seeks to explain a context set of repeatable data, and is distinguishable from other Hypotheses, Theories or Constructs attempting to cohesively explain the same or related data.

Constructs are dangerous, because in the land of SSkepticism, new ideas are a threat to power, money, notoriety, disciple conversion, and the mandate of being right at all costs.  SSkepticsm has developed a practice called Construct Laundering to quickly address at genesis competing ideas contending to become a Hypothesis which they (SS) do not favor.  Now Construct Laundering is wholly different from “Proof Gaming”  Proof Gaming, attempts to force data or a new Construct into the deception of circumventing the Scientific Method by falsely requiring the new idea to be immediately proven by amateurs before it can even be considered as a Construct in Science.  Now amateurs are rarely going to be able to ‘prove’ any particular construct without the aid of Science, so gaming them into the threshold of proof at the very beginning  of the Scientific Method is a Deskeption tactic and sleight of hand which is very popular, and will be the subject of another blog altogether.  The goal however is the same:  to keep forbidden ideas out of the realm of science in the first place.

Construct Laundering on the other hand involves the basketball drill of circular referential reasoning and shill Peer Review obfuscation which tender the appearance of the Scientific Method, but in reality only amount to a small group of players telling each other that they are right.  The goal: Kill a new idea quickly before it can spread.  Information is viral, and remember, a SSkeptic bristles at an increase in information.

In Construct Laundering, a SSkeptic who is in essence a sensory litmus, out on the front of contending with the purveyors irrational and fringe subject sets, encounters an idea with apparently strong enough merit to catch attention in the eyes of many laymen.  Now of course this does not mean that the idea has any validity at all, but remember – the SSkeptic is not dealing in validity – they are following a protocol.  They seek only Institutional Control and Selective Ignorance.  The SSkeptic’s job is to suggest a classic and banal explanation for the data set or observation which brings the subject back in line with the doctrine of Deskeption, and simultaneously seeks to prove what is already approved.  At the same time, the SSkeptic’s job is to claim to represent Science.  This is a critical aspect of this deceptive practice.

The SSkpetic’s first job is to produce an unqualified explanation of Plausible Deniability.  Most of these explanations are draw from a central reference base and do not change over time.  These pat answers and one liners are easily countered with good information; however, the SSkeptic relies on the fact that the contender does not have access to channels of credibility which would make a difference.  Therefore, the SSkeptic, having no peer accountability except for the fake accountability of the Cabal, is free to propose outlandishly unethical and non-sequitor explanations, as long as a reasonable tie of subjective association can be made.  People who see ghosts have eye floaters, people who see UFO’s saw a plane and were credulously indoctrinated, people who had health success on their own formula are lying, data which shows unpopular history does not exist, the person who contended this does not have a degree we like, “brains fall out open minds”, and on and on.

In Construct Laundering the only task required of the SSkeptic is to whip out the preformed prescribed deniability, and report to a higher authority inside Deskeption circles.

From there, central pseudoscience figures take over.  Their role is to, from a disassociated standpoint, certify the viability of the canned deniability explanation, and make a statement in that regard.  Far beyond a simple Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority), this is a practice rather than simply a logical fallacy.  It is a method developed by a group of individuals, not an error on one person’s part. Evolution springs solely from random single nucleotide mutations and generational culling, and you are ignorant.  As long as one senior tenured member of the Cabal cites this as plausible, it becomes referential doctrine, and now defacto law.  Remember, no science and no scientific method has been employed in the process up to this point.

But for a time, it is law only in the circle of Deskeption.  The key in the process is to then  further obtain a media based recitation of the doctrine issued by the senior member of the Cabal.   It is important to get James Randi and Richard Dawkins as prominently displayed as possible.  Because the truth cannot possibly stand on its own.  Now recall, this is wholly separate from the process of research, peer review, and acceptance.  This is a surreptitious process of enforcement.  It is not the Scientific Method by any means, and the practitioners of the method realize this.  The media based recitation is promoted by another member of the Cabal who is inserted into the media to promulgate the pre-digested tripe – as truth.

From this point on, the field agent, the purveyor of SSkeptic doctrine on the front lines, is equipped with the necessary one liners with which to contend in the realm of fighting to keep suppressed, undesirable constructs, data or ideas.  The idea has “been debunked already.”  My favorite one liner.

This is pseudoscience, and is Deskeption.

TES Signature

November 25, 2010 - Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Argument Fallacies | ,

No comments yet.

Comment (Moderated)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: