When Consensus is Nothing But Pluralistic Ignorance
When a Social Skeptic cites scientific consensus, ask them what polling method was employed and what comparative reduction was utilized on that sample data. The vast majority of them will be unable to answer this question, because in reality they do not care; the ‘evidence’ serves the purpose and needs no further scrutiny. Passive aggregation studies based on equivocal concepts, Bradley Effect, and situational sampling of inherently biased venues, constrained by control of the response of the natural pivot group inside polled science will only result in serving those who hold an agenda and wish to spin a consensus.
Ever wonder where Social Skeptics get these imperious and unquestionable claims to scientific consensus? Well, basically surveys are conducted inside the various American science associations (such as the American Academy of Sciences or American Academy of Neurology). Now there is not a problem with this collection means, as these professional organizations should make all attempts to collect and understand the opinions of their members. In addition, the trustworthiness of the tally involved in these professional association numbers generally does not fall into question. But exactly how is the broader community of scientists polled in order to determine what these organizations consider to be accurate or valid science? And how are the results analyzed, digested and communicated? Therein resides the rub. The habit of pseudo-professionally spinning statistics falsely into predictive and associative ‘evidence’ (see Sorwert Level I SSkeptics) is a very familiar technique to those who observe our cultural academic promotion of cheating through institution and process. There exist three primary problems which reveal many specious claims of ‘scientific consensus’ to be in reality, a prejudicial result of non-sense data gathering, and propaganda dissemination. Let’s examine these industry problems.
/fab-yu-’tis-tic/ : a statistic which is speciously cited from a study or set of skeptical literature, around which the recitation user misrepresents its employment context or possesses scant idea as to what it means, how it was derived, or what it is saying or is indeed not saying. Includes the instance wherein a cited statistic is employed in a fashion wherein only the numerals are correct (ie. “97%”) and the context of employment is extrapolated, hyperbole or is completely incorrect.
I. Collection Samples are Constrained to a Small Skewed or Invalid Subsets of Scientists
The first problem is that only a small potentially biased portion of the scientific community is ever polled. Now, when one executes confidence interval assessments on sampling measures, it is often surprising at how a converging confidence can be established on a very small sample (often 2 – 5%) of the comprehensive population being measured. But this only occurs when the sampling is conducted in an unbiased fashion. When samples are conducted in biased ways or in skewed avenues of collection, more diligence must be undertaken. Let’s look at how that affects the accuracy of a prospective claim to consensus. Scientific consensus, as expressed by Wikipedia:
“Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review.”¹
So consensus measures are drawn, not from the whole body of scientists, rather
- those who’s universities/sponsors pay the $3000 to $9000 to attend various annual professional conferences,¹ – (small – skewed)
- those involved in the publication process (see example below)² – (very small – skewed)
- those involved in the discipline providing replication and peer review¹ – (miniscule – biased)
Now certainly, these are the science professionals who should be counted first in the ‘consensus measuring’ process. Of this there is no doubt. But does this measurement approach really reflect the consensus opinion of scientists as a whole, as claimed by Social Skeptics? Rarely, to almost never statistically. I know that when I attend conferences, like many professionals, I only fill out the surveys if they pertain to an issue about which I feel passionate. If I am speaking or have a scheduled breakout session with a group, I really could care less about the professional surveys. And like me at a conference, most of the individuals in the three categories above, already have a vested interest in the science under consideration in the poll to begin with. So of course they are more likely to be supportive of the current popular emphasis inside their own avenue of research, at conferences and inside publication circles. Polling them is a bit like polling ex and future National Football League players at an NFL Draft Convention as to whether or not they believe that athletic budgets should be increased at the collegiate level. Of course the overwhelming number of respondents are going to be all for it. Then we publish the headline “Vast consensus of athletes are for increased college athletic budgets.” This is spin, and it is a regular course of action in this ‘consensus telling’ process on the part of Social Skepticism. Even if we did undertake the discipline of establishing a confidence interval around such collection measures, which is rarely done, the collection process would have simply been a charade. This is most often the reality.
For an outline of the nine ways in which pollsters purposely manipulate polls to their liking, see A Word About Polls.
Unethically Biased Samples, Not Just Skewed
There is a fourth very popular venue however, through which consensus is collected, which Wikipedia totally skipped. That of polling members of ‘scientific’ organizations. One such example can be found with regard to the poster child organization for falsely contended statistics of consensus, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Commonly touted by consensus spinners as being an ‘organization of scientists,’ it alarmingly and disconcertingly, is not.
The charter and policy declarations from the AAAS clearly delineate it as a social activism group. This is far from a valid basis from which to make the claim that one has sampled an opinion representative of scientists. This is the opinion of ONE BIASED ORGANIZATION. Their charter as a social activist organization is to influence, intimidate and bypass the public trust in an attempt to influence the government. A right granted solely to the American Public, stolen by a special interest. And finally, to demonstrate the non-applicability of ‘consensus’ claims stemming from this organization, from its 1973 AAAS CONSTITUTION (Amended):∈
Article III. Membership and Affiliation
Section 1. Members. Any individual who supports the objectives of the Association and is willing to contribute to the achievement of those objectives is qualified for membership.∋
Let us put the AAAS membership stipulations in their objective (less equivocal-more accurate) form:
To be a member scientist of the AAAS you must support the objectives of the AAAS and must contribute your vote on issues in the way in which they urge. Otherwise you cannot be a member.
This series of declarations show that, in order to join the AAAS, one must support the advocacy goals of the organization, and does not actually have to be a scientist. But if you are a scientist member, you can only vote one way. This is a self regulating requirement and calls into high question the contention that the AAAS, and many similar consensus deriving institutions in any way represent the consensus opinion of all scientists.
II. Fabutistics are Derived from Activism Biased Sample Pools, Employ Equivocal Measures and Bad Methods and are Spun out of Context
But let’s presume our claim to consensus is issued by one of the more ethical media houses or journalists, and retract the sample domain of scientists back to the Wikipedia conservative (ahem… *wink) 3-group representation of how consensus is measured. Of the three measure groups above, certainly key among them are those who actually have published work regarding the matter at hand (bullet point 2 above). Regarding consensus measuring among those who are involved in the publication process, a study which stands exemplary of fabutistic spinning is a celebrated industry survey published in IOP Science recently, measuring the levels of consensus around Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). The Abstract reads:
“We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11, 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”²
Here, despite the real measure that two thirds of the researchers on global climate change expressed no position on AGW, the ones which did, almost unanimously endorsed AGW. This is an inherently skewed measure (I am an AGW proponent so this is not an argument against it, it simply stands as an example critique of bad method and credenda based reporting). In the advocacy set we have a guarantee of a given threshold of bias, coupled with the fact that there exists a disincentive towards the antithetical set of studies. If I have made measures which showed evidence against AGW, am I going to publish this data in the current political climate? Hell no! I would be a fool to do something like this and trash my career in science. If I did indeed dissent, I would join the 66.4% and tender no opinion. In other words, be a skeptic. This assembly of stats is a key example of ethics: right answer most likely on AGW, but a highly unethical method employed to support my conclusion. And as one of my favorite graduate professors would have said, “Mr. K. you got the right answer by coincidence but the method is terribly wrong, so sorry no credit on this one.” In other words, to sum up the above recitation from the IOP Science article:
“97% (97.1%, don’t forget the .1%) of those who went looking for a specific answer, found that specific answer. Amazing how that works. Two thirds of those who study that same subject in general dissented or refused to comment.”
…This is not science, not even close. A similar fabutistic could also be assembled from this study result, and used by the opposition:
“Two Thirds of Global Climate Change researchers are skeptical of AGW.”
Actually 66.4% of scientists who studied the very issue in this instance, indeed had no comment. I find that to be a problematically large number, but am hesitant to spin any stats off it. Either of the equivocal positions above rankle my feathers with regard to misrepresentation. But more commonly you will see this “97% of scientists” fabutistic inexpertly wielded at so-called ‘evidence based’ skeptic sites which don’t bear the first clue in understanding how it was derived, what it means, and what it does not say. The statistic then is imperiously employed by a number of regurgitation outlets in order to squelch free speech.
This is much akin to polling those who have filed burglary reports with the local police department and polling them as to whether or not they are in favor of increased law enforcement budgets. Of course 97% of this group is going to be in favor of something, which stands as the crucial concept entailed in what they just filed as a report. Possibly the right answer from a taxation standpoint, but the wrong method of deriving consent of the governed. Moreover, what if we polled the broader community, those being taxed locally, as to whether they wanted an increase in law enforcement budgets? And in order for them to file their opinion they had to hand their poll sheets in person to the people who had filed burglary reports over the last year? This is how nonsensical the science ‘consensus’ process of measurement is in reality.
The valid way to measure scientific consensus and avoid the boast of pretending to have measured it, is to employ the ethical voting disciplines of Borda Count style of poll vote along with a Condorcet Binary Matchup reduction imbedded into the survey system. After all, when we execute hypothesis reduction inside the scientific method, we are in essence conducting a Condorcet theory reduction anyway. This is science. Why not use actual science to gauge the opinion of scientists? This allows for those in pivot groups, who are simply going with the flow, to highlight secondary theory which might emerge as popular among scientists in the binary iterations.† This without the social pressure from SSkeptics, or specious results stemming from the ‘studying of studies’ (above²) among climate science/voters all of which were not aware that their study would be treated as ‘votes’ to underpin a completely different context and contention at a later date.
An integrity based vote and rank process establishes true opinion, avoiding the pitfalls of passive aggregation approaches based on equivocal concepts and situational sampling of inherently biased venues. As is practiced in the study above, much equivocation can be spun with subjective measures under the moniker of “endorsed.” When a Social Skeptic cites scientific consensus, ask them what polling method was employed and what comparative reduction was utilized on that sample data. The vast majority of them will be unable to answer this question, because in reality they do not care; the ‘evidence’ serves the purpose and needs no further scrutiny. Elimination of these disciplines is the leverage Napoleon Bonaparte used to skew voting inside the French Academy of Sciences in 1801, and assume its presidency. Social Skeptics utilize this exact same revisionist approach to “polling” today to establish a Bonapartesque rule over the perceptions of science.³
III. The Broader Reality is Pivot Group Manipulation Based, Spun and Influenced by Social Skepticism
Consider the following hypothetical example histography of scientific opinion regarding a pluralistic (more than one explanatory candidate) issue inside science. Scientists are polled by a single question survey, but allowed to elaborate on their position regarding the issue. Details not shared, about the nature of the opinion are then added. Let’s examine how a fairly even breakout of consensus aligned evenly along the two explanations, can be converted into a 90+ percentile consensus, by manipulating parties with an agenda.
Notice in the example above that even though one can cite a 91% consensus on this data, the true experts on the subject are divided 50/50
Now, in similar fashion Social Skeptics fail to seek true profile statistics for the broader group of scientists, this is certain. Moreover, once the results are in, they bear a nasty habit of grouping the results into spun camps of ‘quasi-correct’ framing. I will say that I have interacted with several hundred engineers and scientists in my years. A similar effect can be drawn out, as in the case of the AGW study above, through discussion with scientists. An effect which will never show in the measure approach outlined by the various undisciplined science association polls discussed above. The broad group of scientists, in my opinion, do not overwhelmingly support every issue as claimed by the Social Skeptic pundits who insist on speaking for science. In the example immediately above, one not too far off the reality I see in my interactions with scientists, were we to actually perform a Borda-style sampling poll, and were we able to actually obtain the pre-Condorcet results shown, Social Skeptics, in similar fashion to the AGW example above, are able to spin the results in twisted ways, hinging on the equivocal uses of the phrases which are ascribed to each results cluster. Notice the pivot group (in green) in the example chart above. It comprises 60 members of a supposed 100 member Borda group. These individuals range from those who really were intimidated into casting a certain vote, to those who just sorta went along because all their colleagues appeared as well to be going along with the vote (perhaps they obtained this impression via other previous non-Borda, non-Condorcet unethical polls). This is known as a Bradley Effect, and is part of the essence of pluralistic ignorance. This is what a Condorcet-Borda method would seek to weed out:
/consensus : bias influence : sampled population bias : error/ : the principle wherein a person being polled will, especially in the presence of trial heat or iteration-based polls, tend to answer a poll question with a response which they believe the polling organization or the prevailing social pressure, would suggest they should vote or which will not serve to identify them into the wrong camp on a given issue. The actual sentiment of the polled individual is therefore not actually captured.∝
This is why we like to develop poll after subsequent poll. Previous less scientific polls end up influencing the pivot group in subsequent more scientific polls. Such is the nature of spun deception. Pollsters know this, the general public and larger body of scientists, do not.
Moreover, of critical influence in skewed polls is the group tasked within Social Skepticism to provide the herding incentive to the middle band 60 members which the pivot group comprises. The job of the small minority of Social Skeptics (in red, but in reality WAY less than 5%) is to shout the previous results loudly, and ensure that for any member of the pivot group (green) to vote in dissent, they had better have a damn good reason to do so. They accomplish this by attacking the dissent group, as denialists, and stupid – unworthy of their careers in science. This is not a poll at all. This is a junta election exercised by a constrained group referendum. This is how elections proceeded in Uganda for decades.‡ Junta policing, corrupt enforcers, tyrannical rule in outcomes. This non-expert, all important pivot group, then sort of goes along with the herd, and are included in the 90+% profiles, spouted as victory then by Social Skepticism. Get these people alone, and in an informal setting, and privately they will espouse a slightly different flavor of opinion with you. It is clear that one cannot oppose the will of Social Skepticism, without penalty. This we all bear in mind in processes such as polling. This is a condition called in philosophy of science, pluralistic ignorance.
/philosophy : science : social : consensus : malfeasance/ : a situation in which a majority of scientists and researchers privately reject a norm, but incorrectly assume that most other scientists and researchers accept it, often because of a misleading portrayal of consensus by agenda carrying social skeptics. Therefore they choose to go along with something with which they privately dissent or are neutral.
Once you have ‘documented’ scientific consensus, then free speech to the contrary is not allowed in the Social Skeptic’s world. And after all ‘They are the Science.’
“In so far as scientists speak in one voice, and dissent is not really allowed, then appeal to scientific consensus is the same as an appeal to authority.”
~ kathymuggle, senior member, mothering.com; post Aug 12, 11:15 am; link
This enables the non-Condorcet based analysis to result in equivocal aggregations such as appear in the chart above. The silent and the pivot group are stuffed into the ‘consensus’ herd and credit is claimed. Tally another victory by Social Skepticism in converting a scant 12% proponent base, into a 90+% tyranny. Headlines are then spun accordingly. Note that all this has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the science, rather simply the method of claiming victory. It is errant method after all, which true skeptics should decry; simultaneously eschewing the enforcement of answers as a member of the Cabal of intimidation (in red) above. Amazingly, every single issue of plurality can be assembled, digested, misrepresented and then disseminated to the public and body of science at large, in this exact same fashion. The process is indeed, as kathmuggle laments at mothering.com, all simply a game of appeal to authority.
Social Skepticism, through a rush inducing magician’s deception, we can prove anything we want. It is a type of heady power. A junta mentality which goes unrecognized, because we are all just too smart to see it.
¹ Wikipedia, Scientific consensus; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus.
² IOP Science, Environmental Letters; “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,” 15 May 2013; via OPEN ACCESS, John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, et al.
³ Jean Charles de Borda, Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Charles_de_Borda.
† Bag, Sabourian, et al., “Multi-stage voting, sequential elimination and Condorcet consistency,” Journal of Economic Theory, Volume 144, Issue 3, May 2009, Pages 1278–1299;
‡ African Elections Database, Prevalence of Referendum and Restricted Population Voting, http://africanelections.tripod.com/ug.html.
∈ American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) website: http://www.aaas.org/
∋ American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 1973 AAAS CONSTITUTION (Amended) http://www.aaas.org/aaas-constitution-bylaws
∝ Pew Research, US Survey Research: Election Polling, http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s-survey-research/election-polling/
3 Comments »
This blogsite rigorously complies with the Fair Use Act (17 U.S.C. § 107)
“Refreshing to the heart of new and weary seekers of truth alike. Some of the most compelling new philosophy of our time. If you claim to be a skeptic and have not read The Ethical Skeptic, you risk sophomoric bandwagon irrelevancy.” -TRB
“TES, I hope you realize the high quality of material you have produced here. Hopefully you will choose a world stage someday and take personal credit for it. The material is that good.” -AOD
There is a pro-science, educated, rational and resolute movement afoot. A movement of conscience on the part of people just like me. Science and Engineering professionals who apply skepticism daily in their STEMM disciplines, but who nonetheless are raising a warning flag of concern. Welcome to my blog. Within its pages, I hope to portray and teach genuine skepticism, or what is called Ethical Skepticism. Indeed, its mission is to promote the wonder of science through a contrast of authentic skeptical discipline, versus its distorted, pseudo-intellectual and socio-politically motivated counterfeit. I am a graduate level science and engineering professional who faithfully participates in man’s quest for knowledge. I lament however its imprisonment by control driven special interests and vigilante bullying from dogmatic social epistemologists such as science communicating journalists, stage magicians, agenda celebrities, psychologists and oligarch, religious and cartel activists. As you survey my blog, hopefully you will encounter things you’ve personally never considered before. Indeed, its mission is to act as a resource guide for their victims and to foster foremost a discerning perspective for us all on the Cabal of pretenders who abuse and control falsely in the name of science.
A series in parts, which defines the philosophy and outlines the tenets and structure of Ethical Skepticism
A compendium of fallacy and corrupted thought commonly employed inside Social Skepticism
The formal and informal fallacy of deceptively promoting one’s self and ideals through pretense of skepticism
It is plurality, and not the simplest explanation, which bears merit in professional research and the actual scientific method
The compulsory set of core religious beliefs misrepresented as skepticism, atheism, free thinking and science
ABOUT SOCIAL SKEPTICISM AND SSKEPTICS
Social Skepticism is a sponsored activist movement which functions as an integral part of the socially engineered mechanisms attempting to dominate human thought, health, welfare and education. This control serving as means to an end, towards subjection of all mankind’s value to mandated totalitarian institutions. Institutions which avert legal exposure by abusing skepticism to serve their goals. Ends formulated by a social elite; however, which stand threatened by innate elements of mankind’s being and background.
An ideologue driven enforcement therefore of a social epistemology crafted to obfuscate mankind’s understanding of such innate elements. Its members practice a form of vigilante bullying, employed in lieu of science to dismiss disliked subjects, persons and evidence before they can ever see the light of scientific day. Seeking to establish as irrefutable truth a core philosophy of material monism, dictating that only specific authorized life physical and energy domains exist. A comprehensive program of enforcement sought accordingly, through rather than the risk of ethical scientific methodology, instead a practice of preemptive methodical cynicism and provisional knowledge which underpins an embargo policy regarding, cultivates ignorance and institutionalizes intimidation surrounding any subject which could ostensibly serve as a pathway to falsify their power enabling illusory religion of Nihilism.
These pretenders typically have never conducted any science themselves, nor do they represent science or scientific thinking.
Social Skeptics falsely identify themselves as ‘skeptics.’ Indeed rather, SSkeptics are self or institutionally appointed Bernaysian engineering activists, posing as rational and logical subject matter authorities enforcing one specific answer in a broad array of pluralistic topics of contention, while at the same time “doubting“ all other potentialities. Far from actually practicing skepticism and abandoning the scientific method when it does not suit their embargo, SSkeptics seek to intimidate scientists and the media, enforce doctrines lacking scientific basis and imperiously pass them to the public as unassailable truth.
We Are Anonymous http://anonhq.com/
Skeptopathy Magazine http://skeptopathy.com/wp/
Hoofnagle the Science Cat https://www.facebook.com/HoofnagleScienceCat/
Debunking Skeptics http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Skeptical about Skeptics http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/
Michael Prescott http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/
Brian Martin http://www.bmartin.cc/index.html
My Socrates Note http://my-socrates-note.blogspot.com/?m=1
Facebook Groups https://www.facebook.com/groups/925334447494947/
The Difference Between Ethical and Social Skepticism
Ethical Skepticism is a blend of Empirical and Philosophical Skepticism, the tenets of both of which are vetted as to their efficacy in delivering value and clarity inside man’s knowledge development process. It rejects the abuse of Cartesian Doubt as a racket of a priori simplistic predictive based knowledge, self delusion and Methodical Cynicism. Instead, Ethical Skepticism dictates a mute disposition on any topic which science has not studied or the Ethical Skeptic himself has not studied. Ethical Skepticism petitions for Ockham’s Razor plurality in research when sponsorship has shown adequate necessity, and opposes all efforts to squelch such research.
Ethical Skeptics apply skepticism as one of a set of tools employed inside a life characterized by open curiosity, discipline, observation. They continually investigate in order to ask the right question in accordance with the complete scientific method; not defend the right answer. They bear paramount, the personal and professional ethic of defending the integrity of the knowledge development process. Skepticism is a way of preparing the mind and data sets, in order to accomplish science.
Social Skepticism is false a priori deduction combined with stacked provisional induction used as a masquerade of science method in order to enforce a belief set as constituting science. It is an abuse of Cartesian Doubt as a racket of a priori, simplistic, provisional, risk-ignorant knowledge, self delusion and methodical cynicism. It seeks an embargo of certain aspects of man’s knowledge development process. It rejects Philosophical Skepticism and employs Empirical Skepticism only when its tenets support specific knowledge embargo agendas. Instead of tendering mute disposition on any topic which science has not studied, Social Skepticism corrupts science into methodical cynicism employed to to squelch such research and enforces false interpretations of scientific conclusions to support its embargo goals.
Social Skeptics wear SSkepticism as an identity, apply intimidation and doubt only to subjects they disdain, and enforce an embargo regarding any and all observations or science which might serve to undermine their Cabal authorized ontology. They eschew data collection; instead undertaking social activism and unethical activity, any means necessary to enforce the ‘right answer’ and secure the power of their sponsor institutions. Social Skeptics abuse skepticism to act in lieu of science, not as subset thereof.
- Follow The Ethical Skeptic on WordPress.com
Top Posts & Pages
- Ten Reasons People No Longer Find Skeptics Credible
- The Tower of Wrong: The Art of Professional Lying
- No You are Not an Atheist, You are a Nihilist
- Image: The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation
- The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation
- What is Social Skepticism?
- Formal vs Informal Fallacy and Their Abuse
- No Difference Between Fundamentalism and Pseudoscience
- The Appeal to Skepticism Fallacy
- Formal vs Informal Fallacy and Their Abuse
- Poser Science: Proof Gaming
- Discerning Sound from Questionable Science Publication
- The Tower of Wrong: The Art of Professional Lying
- Dear Journalism Schools We Deserve Better Quality Graduates as Aspiring Science Communicators
- The Ten Indicators of Methodical Genocide
- A Word About Polls
- And I Have Touched the Sky: The Appeal to Plenitude Error
- Contrasting Deontological Intelligence with Cultivated Ignorance
- Nurturing the New Mind: The Disruptive Nature of Ethics
- The Warning Indicators of Stacked Provisional Knowledge
- The Seven Features of Great Philosophy
- Spotting the Humpty Numpty
- The Joy of Sleight-of-Hand Manipulation
- Differentiating Scientific Literacy from Social Propaganda
- How Glyphosate Practices Serve to Increase Our Diet Risk Exposure
- Lies of Which I Disabused Myself Along the Way
- Islam, Corruption and Socialism All Relate in Direct Proportion to Human Suffering
- Ethical Skepticism – Part 8 – The Watchers Must Also Be Watched
- What Corporations Do When Bankrupt of Ideas/Ethics
- The Inverse Problem and False Claims to ‘Settled Science’
- Abuse of the Dunning-Kruger Effect
- The War Against Supplements Continues to Revel in Harmful Pseudoscience
- Ethical Skepticism – Part 7 – The Unexpected Virtue of Allow-For Thinking
- Never Never Land: The Folly of Pretense Concerning Our Cerebral Injury Children
- The Skeptic’s Guide to Dismissing Public Claims of Illnesses
- Foundation Works on Ethical Skepticism
- Deception Through Abuse of the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy
- Major Flaws Within the Neurodiversity Movement
- When Observation Gives Way to Data-Centric Only Science We All Lose
- When a Social Skeptic Claims to be Evidence Based
- Garbage Skepticism: The Definition
- The Correlation-Causality One-Liner Can Highlight One’s Scientific Illiteracy
- Irish Pennants: The Nature of Flawed versus Sound Definitions
- The Nature of Argument
- The Ethical Skeptic’s Argument Assessment Checklist
- No Promenade in the Savage Dance
- The Kuhn-loss Interplay of Scientific Revolution and Resilience
- The Warning Signs that a Social Epistemology is at Play
- Islam Judaism and Christianity: Time to Remove and Renounce Your Holy Verses Celebrating Violence
- The Celeber Cavilla Fallacy
- Are You a Cynic? You Might be Surprised
- The Best Snake Oil is One You Don’t Even Realize is Being Peddled
- Ethical Skepticism – Part 6 – Say What You Mean and Mean What You Say
- Ten Reasons People No Longer Find Skeptics Credible
- The Seven Steps of How I Recovered my Gut Flora and My Health
- No, I Won’t Back Down
- The Dark Side of SSkepticism: The Richeliean Appeal
- On Being a Young Person Contemplating Joining a Faith
- SSkeptic Weapon Word Top 25
- The Malicious Social Lie called Privilege
- The (Ethical Skeptic) Definition of God
- Deconstructing the Rhetoric around What Constitutes Pseudoscience
- Gaming the Lexicology of Ideas through Neologism
- Popper Demarcation Practice and Malpractice
- The Art of Rhetoric
- How You Persuade Makes All the Difference
- How You Say It Makes All the Difference
- Corber’s Burden of Skepticism and The Omega Hypothesis
- The Burden of Proof (in Gumballs)
- Oh, Those Darned Narcissists
- The Five Types of Null Hypothesis Error
- Wittgenstein Error and Its Faithful Participants
- Rationality is Not What False Skeptics Portray
- The Rising Age of the Cartel: Your Freedoms Were Simply an Experiment
- A Mediocracy in 4.0: Discounting College Acceptance Aptitude Testing is a Grave Error
- Aristotle: Discerning the True Skeptic
- iSkeptic – The Three Laws (and a Fourth)
- Why Sagan is Wrong – The Fake Skeptic Detection Kit
- If the New Religiously Unaffiliated are Not Choosing Atheism, Then Just What are They?
- Diagnostic Habituation Error and Spotting Those Who Fall Its Prey
- Nihilism’s Twisting & Turing Denial of Free Will
- The Deontologically Accurate Basis of the Term: Social Skepticism
- Have You Grown Weary of This? There is a Better Path
- A New Ethic
- Why I Don’t Golf
- The Lifecycle of Fake Skepticism – What’s the Harm?
- The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation
- An Internet Pre-filtered by Authorized Knowledge is a Mistake
- The Misrepresented and So Called ‘War on Science’
- The Ten EnDamnedments – Where the Moral Arc is Headed
- Yes Skeptics Have a PR Problem – Social Skeptics
- When Consensus is Nothing But Pluralistic Ignorance
- The Sorwert Scale of Fake Skepticism
- The Critical Role of Sponsors in the Scientific Method
- An Official ‘Thank You’ to Science Based Medicine
- No You are Not an Atheist, You are a Nihilist
- Methodical Cynicism: The Lyin’tific Method
- Methodical Cynicism: The Presentation
- Your Self is a Mere Illusion of Neurofunction
- Bad Science Being Bad
- The MiHoDeAL Claim to Knowledge
- Ethical Skepticism – Part 4 – The Panoply of Belief
- Latent Demand for Critical Thinking about Skepticism
- The Urgent Need to Reform the ABCD Seed Cartel Science Around Glyphosate
- Hell Hath No Punishment Like Watching Your Children Suffer
- The Magician’s Rush of Fake Skepticism
Site infoThe Ethical Skeptic
Blog at WordPress.com.