The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

Dissent versus Denialism Equivocation

SSkeptic Denialism: When dissent is made to be a Scarlet Letter crime
booksProposing that Scientific Diligence be done, is not denial.  Blocking research with social bullying is.

Denialism, contrary to the pop definition currently applied to researchers concerned about the negative aspects of our vaccination practices, is NOT about a minority of people refusing to accept a single idea.  The pop definition is fueled by a political agenda of SSkeptics, seeking to maintain control of personal freedom under the banner of “Science or Evidence Based Practices.”  This pop definition of Denialism, is is an irrational and non sequitur fad to sell books and increase Social Skeptic Cabal power.  Just read any diatribe by most of those who proclaim loudly to be focused on the science, and you will see that – in the end – it is never about human health, but rather self aggrandizement, cabal reputation and control. Remember, they have no respect for you at all.  Denial comes when you who are beneath them, do not accept what  SSkeptics attempt to force upon you.  Dissent comes when two parties of mutual respect, disagree.

Denialism in actuality however, is the irrational act of refusing to accede to the overwhelming body of evidence which clearly substantiates a paradigm shift, or at the very least, a necessity of plurality under Ockham’s Razor, within the body of Science.  Denialism, is not the practice of being the dissenting minority, as is in the case of those seeking to give a rational pause to the mad rush to vaccinate or genetically modify without proper scientific diligence.  That is the act of dissent.   For me, I support our program of vaccinations but I do not support the campaigns which cite that nothing is wrong with them. People are being injured by them, and severely injured. I do not support the action of heavy handed SSkeptics, who seek to squelch anyone who raises a question about the dangers of current medical practices, including vaccine substrates or pathogens.   I have friends, in fact I helped to support one who lost her job after contracting the VAERS “1 in a million” Guillain-Barre syndrome three weeks after their flu vaccinations.  I have friends who have one of the 1 in 140 80 40 children with Autism. Something is causing this; and no, it is not their imagination or method of diagnosis as Social Skepticism claims.

I have friends who pay $12,000 a year to have their children in special needs schools, suffering from lifelong “1 in a million” Encephalopathy from reactions to the DTaP and MMR vaccinations.  Two families left destitute by our government with no aid, because Social Skeptics authoritatively deny that the malady cause even exists. False skeptics support propaganda which instructs doctors to tell the families that the reaction is simply a more severe response and that everything will turn out fine; whereupon 5 years later the developmental delay evaluations from K5 show up and the Vaccine Injury filing Deadline of 3 years had already passed.

How do we fall victim to this ill-crafted legislation? Solely as the result of the work of Social Skepticism.  These families suffer at the hands of fake intellectualism, big pharma lobbying and social arrogance from the clueless. These parents believed the propaganda from Social Skepticism that there were no such thing as injuries from vaccines. Until it was too late. Now of course they are labelled as ‘stupid morons’ as well by the very people who cause enormous suffering for their child.

Yes, this is happening right now to parents all over the United States. The social activism of fake skeptics, which promotes this tragedy is a set of mafia crimes. A crime of Social Skepticism.

And the tragedy is solely the responsibility of Social Skepticism. Four men in my neighborhood have died in the last 3 years of ‘extraordinarily rare’ cancers – more than the number of people who have died in car accidents.

That makes 12 families I know, harmed by SOMETHING… and those families have their suspicions. They get nothing but opposition from big pharma social skeptics. I support all groups’ quest and petitions for further research as to the causes of these maladies. I do not support the blocking of research under the pretense of screaming about science and rationality. Something stark is going on, and it exists either in our medicine or our food.  Both are being irrationally protected by Social Skepticism, without the objectivity which skepticism or science might afford a controversially charged topic.

Try as I may, after 11 semesters in calculus through advanced theoretical math, 9 semesters in statistics, probability theory, system modeling, hypothesis testing and scientific reporting, a graduate thesis, and 8 semesters of advanced physics across several models – I am at at total loss to make the Law of Large Numbers explain 12 “million to one” occurrences in my own neighborhood. Perhaps we should all go buy a batch of SuperLotto Plus cards!!!

The Ways in Which Dissent is Publicly Spun as a Scarlet Letter Crime:

We don't need to do the science - We ARE the science

We don’t need to do the science – We ARE the science

  • Much public noise about but very little adherence to, the scripture of The Scientific Method
  • The false spinning of a researched theory into establishment of Scientific Consensus
  • A Taxonomy Fallacy in attempting to frame opponents arguments in a way they have not been intended by the proponent (eg. “against vaccinations”), for the simple act of citing damage cases and asking the right questions
  • Public witch hunts
  • Asking the wrong questions, in accordance with the scientific method, in order to feign the appearance of representing science
  • Assigning clueless activists and unqualified people to attack and socially deride those who dare to raise a concern
  • Policing of forums, media channels, and public venues by unqualified and shallow sycophants
  • Denying all parties access to the body Scientific or legitimate public discourse
  • Denying the diseases and injuries cited by opponents even exist, or denial of any evidence brought by the proponents
  • A pretense that they themselves, not method, represent science.

They do this because they are attempting to circumvent the Scientific Method. In order to accomplish such a feat, one has to pose a great deal of intimidation, distraction and social Scarlet-Lettering threats in their method.  Do not trust persons who seek to use social discourse to circumvent the scientific method.

As well exhibited by many SSkeptics, Denialism is the state in which a powerful political or social body dictates that a shift to a construct or plurality should NOT be considered in the body of Science, despite any or all favorable evidence. Denialists dictate that a prosaic or contemporary explanation which has been socialized and accepted, must remain in place until ostensibly another idea is “proved” by outsiders. (see “Deskeption: Proof Gaming”)  Denialists rarely focus on the evidence, rather attempt to shoot personally at persons considering an opposing theory.  Any opposing theory.

Kuhn Denialism: Actively seeking to block paradigm change

American Physicist Thomas Kuhn believed that scientists’ subjective experiences made science a relativistic discipline.  Denialists bristle at this idea.  His construct, published as The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was also commonly known as the concept of a Paradigm Shift.  SSkeptics seldom if ever initiate, substantiate, accept nor support Paradigm Shifts – because most SSkeptics deny the central tenets of Kuhn’s Relativistic Paradigm view of Science, which comprises the following:

  1. Most scientific work is spent filling out the details of the prevailing paradigm, not in divergent or critical investigation
  2. Over time anomalies accumulate in the prevailing paradigm, eventually building into a ‘paradigm shift’
  3. A field of study is NOT a science until it has a single, unifying paradigm within which most of its practitioners work.
  4. Kuhn therefore characterized progress in science as a highly social activity as opposed to solely rational.
Dissent – The either objective or irrational act of refusing to fully accede to a paradigm or generally accepted theory.
Denialism – The pseudoscience of socially bullying and dictating that the body of Science not be allowed to consider a condition of plurality or new paradigm. The personal or organizational refusal to observe, collect or acknowledge data, or allow such data into a body of research.

Dissent is NOT Denialism, contrary to the current Pop SSkeptic definition.  Social Skepticism seeks the goals of Denialism, obfuscation, and collective control of thought.  Social Skeptics achieve Denialism Social goals through the pseudoscience methods of Deskeption.  This is why they are called Social Skeptics, or SSkeptics.

TES Signature


February 12, 2011 - Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Argument Fallacies, Social Disdain | , , , , , , , , , ,

No comments yet.

Comment (Moderated)

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

You are commenting using your 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: