The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

No Difference Between Fundamentalism and Pseudoscience

“You don’t know science” – “You don’t know God” The two accusations are implied by the same claimant, with simply differing trivial allegiances. Once allegiance has an old man’s face and beard attached to it, the other some nebulous form of authority featuring an abject rejection of the same face and beard. But they are essentially the same argument, from the same mindset.

We had previously examined the definition of religion and found a suitable term which elegantly fits the puzzle resolved by ethical skepticism. That definition being

Religion – The compulsory adherence to an idea which is prohibited testing for falsification.

Therefore, there exist two subsets of religion as we know it – one reveres a bearded old man and the other anti-reveres that same bearded old man. Yawn.

Fundamentalism – The compulsory adherence to an idea which is prohibited falsification, because God said it.

Pseudoscience – The compulsory adherence to an idea which is prohibited falsification, because Science said it.

In each case, one key earmark to detect a faker of this sort is the implication on the part of the claimant, that you do not know God or you do not know Science – in order to pass by an argument which has not been vetted by means of Popper Demarcation science.


There is no difference between fundamentalism and pseudoscience, save the false authority via which it’s claim is affirmed

both in one

April 22, 2014 - Posted by | Institutional Mandates | ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: