The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

Ethical Skepticism: Clarity

The Two Goals of Ethical Skepticism: Value and Clarity


A primary goal of Ethical Skepticism: “Clarity – as measured by the ability to obtain common ground or understanding with opponents when possible”

clarity windowClarity is the triumph of the human mind.  Regardless of the veracity of our beliefs, our claims and our understanding of the natural realm which envelopes our daily lives, it is clarity which should excite our souls, the ability to see which should become our benchmark, and the capability to then share clear ideas with each other which becomes the fulfillment of our life legacy.  An idea which proves me wrong, which tenders me clear and further advanced thinking on a subject should be embraced fully by the Ethical Skeptic.  Clarity can be muddied by fervor and can be betrayed by agendas of disdain and control.  Clarity is the gift which blesses the pure of heart but eludes those who seek baser goals.   The onus is upon each of us to not be deceived by the illusion of residing in clarity; rather to discern when our ‘clarity’ is simply a convenient packaging of propaganda, and not the disciplined daily mental breakthrough which is the signature trait of the truly ethical intellect.

The Ethical Skeptic should eagerly seek to be proven wrong every single day

Clarity is however an illusive state.  The prerequisites of clarity are an objective heart and a disciplined set of habits with regard to the handling of new information and principles.  The undisciplined traits of SSkeptics outlined later herein, represent the lazy tolerance of muddied conflict as satisfactory in one’s life or necessary in gaining an advantage on opponents, and stand as the essence of deception, Deskeption and politics.  Four key measures which help the Ethical Skeptic monitor their walk along the line of Clarity, and which are helpful to me include:

a.  The demonstrated and consistent ability on my part to accurately articulate an opponent’s contention (have your opponent relax and say “Yes, that is what I am contending.”), coupled with

b.  The ability on my part to skillfully disarm and bring an opponent to accurately articulate my position or data set (have your opponent say in non-defensive fashion “So what you are saying is…”),

followed by

c.  The ability to find common grounds of understanding with opponents when possible, and

d.  The daily habit and ethic of re-examining tired old understood constructs in totally new ways.

These are the measures which the Ethical Skeptic should seek in pluralistic discourse in an effort to groom and maintain their clarity.  A good laugh over the nature of the disagreement is often a key hallmark of having achieved Clarity when it comes to a pluralistic discussion.

Deskeption: When Clarity is NOT the Goal

mud windshieldBut when clarity is not the primary goal, when there is actually no semblance of a two party discourse in the mind of the agenda promoting SSkeptic, a habitual set of practices emerges from the doctrine and methodology of the practitioner of Deskeption.  The key methods of opaquing issues and eluding Clarity, are tendered under the psychological need to maintain the appearance of always being right.  They include:

  • Associative Condemnation – The attempt to link controversial subject A with personally disliked subject B, in an effort to impute falsehood to subject B though the association of some idea or keyword common to both topics.  Guilt through association and lumping all subjects into one subjective category.  This typically will involve a context shift or definition expansion in a key word as part of the justification.
  • Antiquing – The citing of very old and ludicrous sounding histories of a modern phenomenon to associate the phenomena with backward or pedestrian old thinking and culture, in an attempt to avoid modern evidence data and impart a tarnish to the idea as originating from an era of non-enlightenment and myth.
  • Construct Laundering – A proposal of Plausible Deniability is tendered on the part of one prominent SSkeptic regarding a Cabal target pluralistic topic. This Plausible Deniability is subsequently then is cited as a peer reference by others inside the SSkeptic Cabal as evidence of falsification. After time, this referential discourse is further promoted as peer reviewed proof that a topic or construct has been ‘debunked already’ by experts in their community at large.  In reality no such falsification has indeed been attempted nor attained.  Only an outlandish  but conforming counter-explanation has been enforced through the SSkeptic community as de rigueur doctrine.
  • Context Dancing –The habit and common practice of SSkeptics whereby a discussion which is less favorable will be shifted slightly in context and into a new realm in which a more favorable new counter point can be introduced that appears to refute the idea being considered or supports SSkeptic’s viewpoints which were unsupportable in the former context.
  • Credulity Accusing – Accusing a person of practicing pseudoscience and credulity simply because they are regarding an outlier idea.  A credulist may be wrong, but as long as they are not pretending to represent Science or claim to be using the Scientific Method, they are not practicing pseudoscience; rather, are merely guilty of being receptive to an untested conclusion.
  • Denial/Dissent Blurring – Denial by a SSkeptic being falsely passed off as informed dissent on their part. Conversely, spinning dissenters or those with opposing data as persons who are “Deniers.”  Denial is the personal or organizational refusal to observe, collect or acknowledge data, or allow such data into a body of research; whereas dissent is an educated disagreement.
  • Fake Hoax Exploitation – An Agent of Deskeption who is anonymous, or who poses to be representative of the Concealed Truth, then posits a transparently ludicrous idea or obviously faked hoax piece of ‘evidence’ which is posed in order to discredit and poorly characterize those of opposite opinions from the SSkeptic.
  • Fact /Ambiguity Dipoles – A fact tendered along with a less obvious parasitic and maliciously incorrect implication.  This sleight-of-hand is employed to surreptitiously condemn topics and people false skeptics wish to attack, while avoiding the overt appearance of doing such unethical activity.  One-liners and headlines are often the best places in which to practice this malicious art; typically employed with the personal goal of improving overall Cabal ranking.  A Fact/Ambiguity Dipole dances along the boundary line of slander or libel, with its virtual center of gravity, the parasitic implication, clearly on the unethical side of that line, while at the same time the superficially contended technical facts remain accurate.
  • Faith Enforcement – The habit of forcing those around you to adhere to your personal choice to cherish an unproven construct as true.
  • Kuhn Denialism – The pseudoscience of social and media bullying with the ultimate goal of controlling exposure to and blocking Science’s consideration of a condition of plurality or new paradigm or its supporting data on a given disliked subject.
  • Plausible Deniability – A technique of obfuscation employed by SSkeptics to enforce a classic or predetermined Deskeption conforming conclusion inside a pluralistic set of observations/data.  The explanation is oft touted to be in compliance with science and an erroneous interpretation of “Occam’s Razor (sic)” wherein the ‘simplest explanation tends to be the correct one.”  In reality, the proposed deniability scenario, while seeming simple in concept, is highly complicated in its viability or application, and often constitutes an impossible explanation of the data set which has been observed.  Plausible Deniability therefore is a method of thought control and data filtering and in no way represents science falsification hierarchy logic nor the scientific method.
  • Pork-Barreling – The practice of shifting the context of an accepted tenet of science or broadening the definitions involved in the principle, in order to appear to imply that science includes proof of additional ideas personally or religiously favored by the SSkeptic.  Blurring – to the converse, using the same tactics with opposing viewpoints to imply that science has condemned or disproved them; when in fact no such event has occurred.
  • Promotification – The pseudoscience (antithesis of Falsification) of forcing the proponent of an idea to, as a priority first, fully develop evidence in support of and tests which can only serve to confirm competing or classic explanations.  It suffers from the logical fallacy that it provides for no disciplined falsification under Developmental Science Methodology, and refuses to acknowledge differing research protocols under Discovery Science Methodology.
  • Proof Gaming – The pseudoscience of forcing the proponent of a construct or set of data, to immediately and definitively prove their contention, circumventing the scientific method and aid of science, before the contention would ostensibly be allowed to be researched by science.
  • Proof by Non-falsifiability (Defaulting) – By selecting and promoting a pet theory or religious tenet which resides inside the set of falsification-prohibited constructs, SSkeptics establish popular veracity of  favored beliefs, by default.  Since their favored theory cannot be approached for falsification, it would be pseudoscience to compete it with other falsifiable constructs and claim it to be an outcome of the Scientific Method. Therefore the scientific method is disposed of, the non-falsifiable theory is assigned a presumption of truth, and furthermore can never be disproved.  A flavor of un-seatable ‘King of the Hill’ status is established for pet SSkeptic beliefs.
  • Religion Enforcement– Forcing compulsory adherence to an idea around which testing for falsification is prohibited.
  • Semantics Jousting – The common practice of SSkeptics to introduce terms with broad and multiple definition footprints in order to shift the discussion from one word meaning in which they are at a disadvantage, and onto another meaning of that same word which then allows a new context to be introduced, and the topic to be steered back to their enforced point of view.
  • Stooge Posing – Attack on piece of data or an easily disprovable topic of credulity used as an effort to bolster a SSkeptic’s record of debunking success and club ranking.  Easy kills, selected because they require little actual effort in research and are useful as visibility-increasing pseudoscience bashing victories, offer merit badge points which increase the Cabal Member’s status and perceived gravitas.  In the end the SSkeptic neither cares about the subject itself, nor science at all; rather, uses the merit points to then increase their credibility in and around other tougher subjects which they then seek to discredit.  It is about crafting personal power by any means available.

By spotting these unethical habits in our own actions, and developing the mental discipline to filter them out of our discourse; by regarding new ideas and persons with enough respect to understand them accurately first, and by pondering anew the mysteries of our world each day, as a habit – the Ethical Skeptic grows, and so does the Clarity of his world.

Ethical Skepticism, exhibiting the best of Human Character.

TES Signature


April 22, 2012 - Posted by | Ethical Skepticism | , , , , , , ,

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: