The following is The Ethical Skeptic’s list, useful in spotting both formal and informal logical fallacies, cognitive biases, statistical broaches and styles of crooked thinking on the part of those in the Social Skepticism movement. It is categorized by employment groupings so that it can function as a context appropriate resource in a critical review of an essay, imperious diatribe or publication by a thought enforcing Social Skeptic. To assist this, we have comprised the list inside an intuitive taxonomy of ten contextual categories of mischaracterization/misrepresentation:
Misrepresentation by Argument
a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid – the fallacy of arguing from a generalization (the dicto simpliciter) to a particular case (ad dictum secundum), without recognizing qualifying factors, i.e.: Most people are involved in conspiracy theory cults, then anyone who disagrees with me is a conspiracy theory cultist.’
absens sciens absens iniuria – literally, no knowledge – no harm. A procedural fallacy or error in principle similar to ‘what they don’t know, won’t hurt ’em’. An erroneous principle which cites that a person cannot be harmed if they do not know that they were harmed. Alternatively, if a group of people is unaware that a harm has been done, then no one in that group has been harmed. A form of pluralistic ignorance exploitation.
acatalepsia Fallacy – a flaw in critical path logic wherein one appeals to the Pyrrhonistic Skepticism principle that no knowledge can ever be entirely certain – and twists it into the implication that therefore, knowledge is ascertained by the mere establishment of some form of ‘probability’. Moreover, that therefore, when a probability is established, no matter how plausible, slight or scant in representation of the domain of information it might constitute, it is therefore now accepted truth. Because all knowledge is only ‘probable’ knowledge, all one has to do is spin an apparent probability, and one has ascertained accepted knowledge. Very similar in logic to the Occam’s Razor aphorism citing that the ‘simplest explanation’ is the correct explanation.
Acceptance Pleading – a form of special pleading or resignation through conflating acceptance of the reality of a personal circumstance or injury we cannot change, and making the most of life despite it – with acceptance of the ongoing societal mechanisms, ignorance and corrupt practices which caused the circumstance or injury in the first place.
Accident – the fallacy of applying a generally accepted rule to a particular case whose special circumstances or context render the rule inapplicable or irrelevant. Also, the instance common in media wherein so-called ‘fact-based’ media sites tell 100% truth about 50% the relevant story. This is the same as issuing 50% misinformation or disinformation.
ad hoc Fallacy – an ignoratio elenchi response to an argument or evidence, which seeks to exploit ambiguity or non-accountability as a domain in which to craft a defense which cannot be readily distinguished from something made up. Invention of an explanation which distracts attention away from critical path logic, and/or for which evidence to the pro and con cannot be derived in the now, and/or falsification is unapproachable. A tactic of pseudo-theory and a form of rhetoric.
ad hoc/Pseudo-Theory – a placeholder construct which suffers from the additional flaw in that it cannot be fully falsified, deduced nor studied, and can probably never be addressed or further can be proposed in almost any circumstance of uncertainty. These ideas will be thrown out for decades. They can always be thrown out. They will always be thrown out. Sometimes also called ‘blobbing’ or ‘god of the gaps’, it is a bucket into which one dumps every unknown, hate-based, fear-based and unexplained observation – add in a jigger of virtue – then you shake it up like a vodka martini, and get drunk on the encompassing paradigm which can explain everything, anything and nothing all at the same time.
ad virtutem – a form of rhetoric wherein one attacks the virtue of the opponent, through citing their being a racist, or anti-science, or Nationalist Nazi, or baby killer, or homophobe, etc. Usually comes in combination with the accusers having virtue signaled about their personal correct identity inside the good group in such a matter – thereby condemning their opponent through inclusion in the not-good group.
Adoy’s Principle (House Hedge) –
- Inside a conflict in interests, glitches and errors will always favor a single side.
- Penalty systems rarely fail, while benefit systems are dispositioned to do so.
(an inversion of Yoda’s axiom in Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back: “Do, or do not. There is no try.”) – systems which administer punitive actions and/or penalties rarely if ever fail (they ‘do’); while systems which deliver awards and/or benefits often fail or are designed so as to increase the likelihood of failure (they ‘try’). The difference is called a ‘house hedge’. The house hedge is expressed in two ways. First as the economic inefficiency of extraction by taxation: the taxing body gets to keep the house hedge illegitimately as a defacto program inefficiency. Second as a feature of club quality: fake skeptics are allowed to deliver condemning dispositions without any scientific rigor, while their victims must produce flawless science in order to negate the easy proclamations of the fake skeptic.
Advantageously Obtuse (Bridgman Reduction) – a principle which has been translated, reduced or dumbed-down for consumption so as to appear to be a ‘simple’ version of its source principle; however, which has been compromised through such a process. Thereby making it easy to communicate among the vulnerable who fail to grasp its critical elements, and moreover to serve as an apothegm useful in enforcing specific desired conclusions. Statements such as ‘the burden of proof lies on the claimant’ or ‘the simplest explanation tends to be correct’ – stand as twisted, viral forms of their parent principles, which contend ironically, critically or completely different standards of thought.
afto anaforás Appeal – appeal to self reference. A form of posturing and prevarication on the part of a person who regards disagreement with them as constituting a personal attack upon them. If one habitually fails to be able to separate an opponent’s argument from the opponent them self, this is an indicator that one is not skilled in developing an argument separate from one’s own self either. A key indicator of fully entrenched religious beliefs. Many positions held by such an arguer will stem from selfish and emotional origins, as opposed to objective inference. Counterarguments will often be punctuated with a change in inflection to ad hominem as the closing remark inside each successive set of discourse. A gradual shift will occur in their focus from the argument at hand, to a focus upon the person whom they are arguing with, starting initially with gentle aspersions or backhanded/insincere compliments, thereafter growing to flat out insults as the discussion continues – hoping to provoke their opponent into escalating the ad hominem. Often this appellant could care less about the topic/argument in reality – they are just out to embarrass someone they dislike.
Aleatoric Casuistry – employing statistical uncertainty, representative of unknowns that differ each time we run the same experiment, observation or situation, in order to push the idea that something very uncommon is actually common, can be, or has been common. A version of ‘you never know’ or ‘I bet this happens a lot’. A way of implying that an epistemological basis for a frequency of epistemic uncertainty exists, when indeed it does not.
Alinsky’s Rule #9 – from Saul Alinsky’s work Rules for Radicals, the contention that “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” This apothegm was expanded upon by Obama Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel in 2011, inside his corollary, “Never allow a good crisis to go to waste.”
Ambiguity – the construction or delivery of a message in such words or fashion as to allow for several reasonable interpretations of the context, object, subject, relationship, material or backing of the intended message.
Anodyne Phrasing – phrasing deliberately posed in suitable apothegms or buzzwords which are not likely to provoke dissent, offense or disagreement – so that more extreme agendas backed by such locution can be subtly approved by all. Terms such as ‘justice’, ‘hate’, ‘Nazi’, ‘equality’, ‘immigration’ – where the hearer hears one thing, but the agenda poser means another.
Organic Untruth (verum mendacium) – a constructive form of argument which exploits concealed ambiguity or altered premise as the core of its foundational structure. A statement which is true at face value, but was not true or was of unknown verity under the time frame or original basis, soundness, domain or context under discussion.
Not a Logical Truth – It is not that this type of statement is false. The basis of this type of assertion may even reside in scientific validity, or may be only categorically true – i.e. only true if given a specific set of circumstances. However the statement is not a logical truth – a truth of syllogism which is comprehensive, unqualified and unequivocal. Logical truth is the state of syllogism which a deceitful person is wishing for you to infer when they state a categorical truth, yet do not specify its conditions. It is a means of lying through stating something which is only conditionally accurate – hoping that their victim will accept the statement as one which addresses all circumstance.
Slack Exploitation – a form of equivocation or rhetoric wherein an arguer employs a term which at face value appears to constrain the discussion or position contended to a specific definition or domain. However, a purposely chosen word or domain has been employed which allows for several different forms/domains of interpretation of the contention on the part of the arguer. Often this allows the arguer to petition the listener to infer a more acceptable version of his contention, when in fact he is asserting what he knows to be a less acceptable form of it.
secundum quid – comes about from failing to appreciate the distinction between using words absolutely and using them with qualification. Spruce trees, for example, are green with respect to their foliage (they are ‘green’ with qualification); it would be a mistake to infer that they are green absolutely because they have brown trunks and branches.
uti dolo (trick question) – a question which is formed for the primary purpose of misleading a person into selecting (through their inference and/or questioner’s implication) the incorrect answer or answer not preferred inside a slack exploited play of ambiguity, interpretation, sequence, context or meaning. The strong version being where the wrong context is inferred by means of deceptive question delivery; the weak version being where the question is posed inside a slack domain where it can be interpreted legitimately in each of two different ways – each producing a differing answer.
praedicate evidentia – any of several forms of exaggeration or avoidance in qualifying a lack of evidence, logical calculus or soundness inside an argument.
praedicate evidentia – hyperbole in extrapolating or overestimating the gravitas of evidence supporting a specific claim, when only one examination of merit has been conducted, insufficient hypothesis reduction has been performed on the topic, a plurality of data exists but few questions have been asked, few dissenting or negative studies have been published, or few or no such studies have indeed been conducted at all.
praedicate evidentia modus ponens – any form of argument which claims a proposition consequent ‘Q’, which also features a lack of qualifying modus ponens, ‘If P then’ premise in its expression – rather, implying ‘If P then’ as its qualifying antecedent. This as a means of surreptitiously avoiding a lack of soundness or lack of logical calculus inside that argument; and moreover, enforcing only its conclusion ‘Q’ instead. A ‘There is not evidence for…’ claim made inside a condition of little study or full absence of any study whatsoever.
Amphibilogical – a word or definition which existentially bears two meanings of stark contrast, where the equivocation resides inside the term or definition itself and not inside its context of employment. Not entirely the same as ‘amphibological’ – the state of being an amphibology.
Amphibology – is a situation where a contention may be interpreted in more than one way for a variety of deceptive reasons, due to ambiguous sentence structure.
Anecdote Error – the abuse of anecdote in order to squelch ideas and panduct an entire realm of ideas. This comes in two forms:
Type I – a refusal to follow up on an observation or replicate an experiment, does not relegate the data involved to an instance of anecdote.
Type II – an anecdote cannot be employed to force a conclusion, such as using it as an example to condemn a group of persons or topics – but an anecdote can be employed however to introduce Ockham’s Razor plurality. This is a critical distinction which social skeptics conveniently do not realize nor employ.
Anger Bankruptcy – the habit of reacting in anger on the part of a faking or immature skeptic who has painted them self into a corner logically, yet must win all arguments immediately at all costs. A habit of resorting to attacks, pejorative equivocation, insults, playground and social bullying and surreptitious attempts to harm in order to ‘defeat’ an enemy they have crafted, in the instance where they are bankrupt of reason and evidence.
Antonesque Rhetoric – a form of persuasion in which the arguer appears to be supporting one position; however in the same argument through locution tactics or eventually through escalating sarcasm, reveals a logical calculus or means of persuasion which implicitly yields or encourages the opposite position. From Shakespeare’s ‘Julius Caesar’, Caesar’s funeral speech by Marc Antony: “Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest– For Brutus is an honourable man; So are they all, all honourable men– Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral.” It is an ironic permissive. The art of rhetorical persuasion.
Apologetic – neutral, often scripted defense or vindication of a favored viewpoint as a defense against all forms of attack.
Apophenia Bias – the immediate dismissal of data as being manufactured, mis-analyzed, or reflecting random patterns which are ascribed empirical meaning, without having conducted the research into the data, nor possessing the background in the discipline involved in order to be able to make such a claim.
Appeal to Class (Class Warfare) – using the excuse of helping lower disadvantaged strata of society as justification for one’s perfidious actions in harming everyone else or establishing power. The pretense that one’s political agendas are undertaken to help minorities, refugees or the poor, when in reality such actions more concern building power and attacking those a person hates. The pitting of class against class in order to work as a smokescreen and power mitigation tactic, inside surreptitious efforts to establish control.
Appeal to Elves – an argument which is foisted as plausible deniability employed to dismiss a perceived unlikely argument, however which itself is also virtually as outlandish and unlikely as the argument against which it is posited – moreover often implying a more sciencey, probable or possible perception in its offing. A condition of desperation in offering alternatives to a disliked hypothesis – according to the allegory of Santa Claus being a ridiculous concept, as no one could make and deliver that many toys – appealing to elves therefore as the more ‘scientific’ explanation.
Appeal to Fallacy – one of two forms of confusing the state of an assertion being in error, with positing a faulty argument, delivery or sound basis.
Fallacy Fallacy (Argument from Fallacy) – arguer detects a fallacy in argument and declares therefore the person to be ‘wrong’ in assertion as well. When an arguer employs either a formal, or even more an informal fallacy, to stand as the basis to declare a whole subject or assertion in argument to be therefore, false. A formal fallacy or redress on the basis of soundness or induction inference, only serves to invalidate an opponent’s argument structure. All three flaws tender nothing regarding verity of the argument’s assertion or conclusion itself, which may or may not be independently also true. As well, any instance wherein a circumstantial, expression, personal or informal critique or other informal fallacy is inappropriately cited as a mechanism to invalidate an opponent’s argument or stand as basis for dismissal of a subject.
Fallacy Error – arguer detects a condition of being wrong and incorrectly deems this condition to constitute a ‘fallacy’. When an arguer finds an argument assertion to be wrong and declares the incorrect conclusion, error, mistake or lie to constitute a ‘fallacy’. When in reality, a fallacy is nothing but a weakness or flaw in an argument, soundness, logical calculus, structure or form – and has nothing actually to do with the validity of its assertion or conclusion.
Appeal to Fear (of the Unknown) – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by exploiting either existing or manufactured fear surrounding an issue – typically one consisting of a large horizon of unknown, such as after-death, climate and social change.
Appeal to Implicit Conspiracy – the default position taken by a pseudo-skeptic that in order for a counter-claimant to actively research or have confidence in their proposition, then quod erat demonstrandum they must therefore believe a conspiracy exists which is holding back their preferred alternative from being studied or accepted. This default ad hoc fallacy explanation can be accused of anyone, without discretion, distracts from the logic at hand, can never be verified and results in only finding what we already think we know, to therefore be true. A substitute form of science (pseudo-theory) issued in the form of pejorative ad hominem and straw man, all rolled up into one baseless and easy claim on the part of a pseudo-skeptic.
Appeal to Infinity (Plenitude) – a variation of an appeal to magic wherein the infinite size (or other suitably large scale) of the containing domain is posited as the all powerful but scientific rationale behind the existence of a stack of incredibly unlikely happenstance. A closure of scientific argument and refusal to consider other alternatives, especially when an appeal to infinity hypothesis is unduly regarded as the null hypothesis – and further then is defended as consensus science, without appropriate underlying reductive science ever actually being done.
Appeal to Lotto – Informing a person who has been harmed that their instance of harm is extremely uncommon (‘they won the Lotto, simply because someone had to win’ scam). A double appeal to infinity involving convincing a target regarding the personal experience involved in a remote happenstance. A million dollars just fell out of the sky in neat little stacks and then subsequently, you just happened to be the first person to walk by and observe it – two appeals to infinity stacked upon one another. Often used as a sales pitch or con job. Any instance where a ‘Law of Large Numbers’ is used as an apologetic to justify why a person was harmed or an extremely unlikely occurrence emerged.
Omnifinity – any argument which ascribes to a theoretical god, such powers, knowledge and capability such that the god in question is simultaneously able to do anything, and at the same time evade any level of comprehension on our part. This type of god is simply a placeholder argument (the ultimate special pleading) which is a parallel argument to the Infinity of the Gaps argument below. These are twin arguments, which contrary to superficial appearances, are the same exact argument. Neither one constitutes science.
Infinity of the Gaps – any argument where an appeal to infinity is simply employed to avoid the appearance of using a ‘god of the gaps’ explanation, when in reality the employment of infinity as the explanation for an infinitesimally remote chance occurrence is virtually as ridiculous or lacking in epistemological merit as is the god explanation – see Appeal to Elves.
Infinity as Science – any argument where an appeal to infinity is spun as constituting a superior scientific explanation, in comparison to, and in an effort to avoid examining the underlying assumptions which precipitated the invalid perception/belief that an event or series of events are extremely rare or statistically next to impossible in the first place.
Boundary Semantics – pushing the meaning of a term (such as ‘proof’ or ‘knowledge’) into highly or specially plead realms of extreme definition variants, in order to provide an special pleading exception out of any or every argument. This is never a form of being semantically precise, despite a temptation to regard these types of extreme definitions as such. Rather is simply form of equivocation based explanitude.
Explanitude – the condition where a theory or approach has been pushed so hard as authority, or is developed upon the basis of unacknowledged domain uncertainty (such as Marxist class struggle theory or Freudian psychology of sex), that it begins to provide a basis of explanation for, or possesses an accommodation/justification for every condition which is observed or that the theory domain promotes. A theory or approach which seems to be able to explain everything, likely explains nothing (Popper/Pigliucci).
Appeal to Lotto – Informing a person who has been harmed that their instance of harm is extremely uncommon (‘they won the Lotto, simply because someone had to win’ scam). A double appeal to infinity involving convincing a target regarding the personal experience involved in a remote happenstance. A million dollars just fell out of the sky in neat little stacks and then subsequently, you just happened to be the first person to walk by and observe it – two appeals to infinity stacked upon one another. Often used as a sales pitch or con job. Any instance where a ‘Law of Large Numbers’ is used as an apologetic to justify why a person was harmed or an extremely unlikely occurrence emerged.
Appeal to Magic – justifying reasoning inside an observed and constrained domain by underpinning it with rationale derived from inside another unconstrained domain. Ten quadrillion-to-one chance happenstances in series are indistinguishable from an appeal to magic. A hidden miracle is more scientific than is a professed one. Grant me one miracle and I can explain all the rest.
Appeal to philía – using an appeal to brotherly love as an ad hominem (ignoratio elenchi personal attack) styled argument when an opponent is firm or direct in countering what they perceive to be duplicitous or ignorance-cultivating. An appeal to love and understanding – which stand alone bears merit – however, is not salient as a defense in a circumstance of logical critical path risk. A form of appeal to hypocrisy. Not everyone who is hard on you is bad, and not everyone who smiles at you is good. This is something one must teach young people entering professional services.
Appeal to Ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent’s argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.
Appeal to Skepticism (Fallacy of Irrelevance)
1. The invalid use of skepticism to act in lieu of science. The employment of skepticism, in absence of any form of scientific study, in order to derive a scientific conclusion. Philosophy (skepticism) cannot be used to supplant science, as that is neither its role nor capability.
ergo sum veritas Fallacy (of Irrelevance)
2′ (strong). The assumption that because one or one’s organization is acting in the name of skepticism or science, that such a self claimed position affords that organization and/or its members exemption from defamation, business tampering, fraud, privacy, stalking, harassment and tortious interference laws.
2a. The contention, implication or inference that one’s own ideas or the ideas of others hold authoritative or evidence based veracity simply because their proponent has declared themselves to be a ‘skeptic.’
2b. The assumption, implication or inference that an organization bearing a form of title regarding skepticism immediately holds de facto unquestionable factual or ideological credibility over any other entity having conducted an equivalent level of research into a matter at hand.
2c. The assumption, implication or inference that an organization or individual bearing a form of title regarding skepticism, adheres to a higher level of professionalism, ethics or morality than does the general population.
Appeal to Skepticism (Fallacy of Irrelevance)
3a. The declaration, assumption or implication that a consensus skeptical position on a topic is congruent with the consensus opinion of scientists on that topic.
3b. The argument assumption or implication that an opinion possesses authoritative veracity or a proponent possesses intellectual high ground simply through allegiance to a consensus skeptical position on a topic.
4. The presumption or contention that taking a denial based or default dubious stance on a set of evidence or topic is somehow indicative of application of the scientific method on one’s part, or constitutes a position of superior intellect, or represents a superior critical or rational position on a topic at hand.
Inverse Negation Fallacy – The asymmetrical strategy of promoting an idea through negation of all its antithetical concepts. A method of undermining any study, proponent, media byte, article, construct, data, observation, effort or idea which does not fit one’s favored model, in a surreptitious effort to promote that favored model, along with its implicit but not acknowledged underpinning claims, without tendering the appearance of doing so; nor undertaking the risk of exposing that favored model or claims set to the scientific method or to risky critical scrutiny.
Truzzi Fallacy – The presumption that a position of skepticism or plausible conformance on a specific issue affords the skeptical apologist tacit exemption from having to provide authoritative outsider recitation or evidence to support a contended claim or counter-claim. The context wherein a cynic, debunker, or denialist regards that it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon a notion of plausibility, fictitious versions of Occam’s Razor, or probability no matter how slight it may be, rather than any actual empirical evidence. “Pseudo-Skeptics: Critics who assert negative claims, but who mistakenly call themselves ‘skeptics,’ often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on them at all. A result of this is that many critics seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence.” – Marcello Truzzi (Founding Co-chairman of CSICOP)
Richeliean Appeal to Skepticism – an inflation of personal gravitas, celebrity or influence by means of implicit or explicit threats of coercive tactics which can harm a victim one wishes to be silenced. Coercive tactics include threats to harm family, contact employers, tamper with businesses, employment of celebrity status to conduct defamation activities or actions to defraud, or otherwise cause harm to persons, reputation or property. This includes the circumstance where a Richeliean skeptic encourages and enjoys a form of ‘social peer review,’ empowered via politics or a set of sycophants who are willing to enact harm to a level which the Richeliean power holder himself would not personally stoop.
Argument Abuse – argument is a set of propositions expressed with the intent of persuading through reasoning. In an argument, a subset of propositions, called premises, constraints and predicates, provides support for some other proposition called the conclusion. The nature and structure of an argument can be evaluated by four groups of measures regarding its basis, quality, type and outcome.
Basis
Proposition – statement that is either true or false, but not both. For example, tungsten has a larger atomic mass than does lithium.
Premise – a proposition that provides support to an argument’s conclusion. An argument may have one or more premises.
Primer – a review of past valid or strong arguments, or a summary of tenets, predicates or propositions which prepare and add clarity to the outlay of a successive argument or story.
Constraint – a predicate based parameter or assumption which serves to improve the quality of an argument or improve the value or clarity of an experiment.
Predicate – a datum, experiment or element of philosophy or logic which is established as true, and provides deductive support for a successive proposition. Almost exclusively predictive in its employment, a predicate may itself have been derived through falsification. A postulate or corollary relate to laws, but are sometimes used synonymous to predicate.
Salience – the nature of predicate, constraint or premise wherein it adds value, clarity or quality to an argument.
Relevance – the nature of a proposition such that it is consistent with an argument or adds to its value, clarity or quality.
Expertise – immediate, significant, research based, relevant and salient experience in the subject field inside which an argument pertains. This includes the impacted stakeholders in a decision or action.
Inexpertise – conditions of general familiarity with, political or agenda motivations toward or solely skepticism and/or experience in the making of arguments in the subject field inside which an argument pertains. Not all a negative, it is the adept recognition of personal, participant or industry lack of expertise in a particular subject or field which is the essence of skepticism.
Quality (Logical Calculus)
Order – the structure and locution of an argument formulated in such a way as to provide a parsimonious deduction or induction critical path, which allows it to be followed or replicated by another party.
Clarity – the structure and locution of an argument formulated in such a way as to provide a relational path, which allows it to be followed or understood more easily by another party.
Completeness – the structure and locution of an argument formulated in such a way as to provide a parsimonious deduction or induction critical path, which precludes alternative deduction or induction critical paths along the same line of predicates and premises.
Consilience – this is the nature or characteristic of an argument wherein its underpinning premises or predicates provide for independent but mutual reinforcement of its conclusion. This is usually regarded as important in an argument which cannot be easily tested for falsification.
Consistency – this is the nature or characteristic of an argument wherein its conclusion or structure is in parallel with well-established premises or predicates. Also the instance where all portions of compound argument leverage to support each other.
Validity – an inductive argument is valid if its conclusion logically follows from its premises, and in parallel a deductive argument is valid if its predicates support its conclusions. Otherwise, an argument is said to be invalid. The descriptors valid and invalid apply only to arguments and not to propositions; which can be false, true or undetermined.
Structure – the logical formulation and relational structure of elements employed to array premises or predicates into a contention or extrapolation which is contended to be valid or sound.
Reducibility – the ability of an argument (as as the case in mathematics) to reduce the complexity of a question and focus in on the core argument instead – eliminating all irrelevant, dependent, unresolvable, unsolvable and incoherent ideas competing for resolution.
Deducibility – the effectiveness of an argument’s completeness in such a manner as to falsify, or through effective consilience in absence of possible falsification, render at least one other hypothesis along a critical path set as false or more highly unlikely and therefore no longer relevant.
Cogency – an inductive argument is cogent if it is high in quality and its premises provide swift consilience –that is, they all possess a common concordance with well-established truths and logic. Otherwise, it is said to be uncogent. Key inside such relation of consilience or alternately, deductive argument, is how efficiently it can be conveyed.
Falsifiability – an attribute of a proposition or argument that allows it to be refuted, or disproved, through observation or experiment. For example, the proposition, All crows are black, may be refuted by pointing to a crow that is not black. Falsifiability is a sign of an argument’s strength, rather than of its weakness.
Soundness – a deductive argument is sound if it is valid and its premises and predicates are true. If either of those conditions does not hold, then the argument is unsound. Truth is determined by looking at whether the argument’s premises, predicates and conclusions are in accordance with facts and logic in the real world.
Strength – an inductive argument is strong if in the case that its premises are true, then it is highly probable that its conclusion is also true or testable. Otherwise, if it is improbable or unknown/unknowable that its conclusion is true, then it is said to be weak. Inductive arguments are not truth-preserving; it is never the case that a true conclusion must follow from true premises.
Elegance – the effectiveness of an argument’s quality such that it accomplishes an outcome or multiple outcomes in the most propitious manner.
Type
Deductive Argument – an argument which uses premises and logic to eliminate all reasonable alternative considerations, or sets of possible contribution/consideration, through comparison to the strength of its primary assertions. The conclusion is contended to follow with logical necessity from the premises and reductions. Reductions can exist as either elimination of alternatives by hypothesis falsification research, or simply by set constrainment. For example the syllogism, All men are mortal. Plato is a man. Therefore, Plato is mortal.
Inductive Argument – an argument in which if the predicates are true and the relative quality or structure of logic is sound, then it is more probable that the conclusion will also be true. The conclusion therefore does not follow with logical necessity from the predicates, but rather with an increase in likelihood, hopefully converging to certainty. For example, every time we measure the speed of light in various media, it asymptotes to 3 × 108 m/s. Therefore, the speed of light in a medium-less vacuum is 3 × 108 m/s. Inductive arguments usually proceed from specific instances to the more general. In science, one usually proceeds inductively from data to laws to theories, hence induction is the foundation of much of science. Induction is typically taken to mean testing a proposition on a sample, or testing an idea on an established predicate, either because it would be impractical or impossible to do otherwise.
Logical Fallacy – an error in reasoning that results in an invalid argument. Errors are strictly to do with the reasoning used to transition from one proposition to the next, rather than with the facts. Put differently, an invalid argument for an issue does not necessarily mean that the issue is unreasonable. Logical fallacies are violations of one or more of the principles that make a good argument or deduction such as good structure, consistency, clarity, order, relevance and completeness.
Formal Fallacy – a violation of any rule of formal inference —called also paralogism. Any common flaw in the sequitur nature of premise to conclusion, logical or predicate structure which could be cited as the fatal basis of a refutation regarding a given proposition or argument. The proposition that is formally fallacious is always considered wrong. However, the question in view is not whether its conclusion is true or false, but whether the form of the proposition supporting its conclusion is valid or invalid, and if its premises provide for logical connection into the argument (i.e. sequitur context, and not the validity per se of the premises themselves, which pertains to salience and soundness). The argument may agree in its conclusion with an eventual truth only by accident. What gives unity to different fallacies inside this view is not their characteristic dialogue structure, rather the nature of integrity inside the concepts of deduction and (non-inductive) proof upon which the proposition is critically founded.
Informal Fallacy – flaws in the expression, features, intent or dialogue structure of a proposition or series of propositions. Any criticism of an argument by means of other than structure (formal) flaws; most often when the contents of an argument’s stated premises fail to adequately support its proposed conclusion (soundness), or serious errors in foundational facts are presented.
Problem of Induction – a variety of forms of argument which either suffer from Popper’s problem of induction, demarcation or in some way imply or claim scientific completion or consensus, when such a standard has either not been attained in fact, or only exhibited inductive consilience.
Provisional Argument – a construct or a framework explanation not presented yet as true, rather which is contending for plurality based on salient and relevant evidence which does not yet complete a fully deductive or inductive chain of reason, or has not been fully confirmed by empirical observation. Often presented to lay claim to credit for an idea for further research before others craft similar thought, much as with a provisional patent.
Construct – a provisional argument which is not yet mature enough to be called a hypothesis; yet which has some suggestive evidence or ideas behind it.
Plausible Deniability – a provisional argument which is foisted solely for its outcome in blocking the introduction of an opposing explanation or theory. In practice this is often done with little or no suggestive evidence behind it and is validated or declared true simply based upon its plausibility rather than quality, structure or basis.
per hoc aditum – according to this approach. The ethical skepticism version of provisional or stacked arguments, which allow for the examination of a postulate, construct or theory in an unbiased pathway of consideration; often as one of a plural set of explanatory approaches. The ability to hold more than one explanatory pathway in mind and fairly consider the strengths, shortfalls and ramifications of each without a priori based beliefs or prejudices unduly influencing the ability to discern the core argument/application at hand.
Syllogism – A syllogism is a structured form of deductive reasoning, through constraint of an argument by means of two sequitur, major and minor contentions, bounding an argument towards a single conclusion – by deductive elimination of all other potentialities. In the instance where either major or minor argument are not truly deductive or have not eliminated every variant of condition, the syllogism is not a sound basis for inference.
Rhetorical Argument – an argument which begins with an answer and seeks to target a victim person or idea through a process of opportunistic persuasion and locution, tactics applied to support the answer in arrears. It is the opposite of argument. May simply be executed to express a point, in which case the rhetorical argument is only regarded as a an alternative postulate.
Antonesque Rhetoric – a form of rhetoric in which the arguer appears to be supporting one position; however in the same argument through locution tactics or eventually through escalating sarcasm, reveals a logical calculus or means of persuasion which implicitly yields the opposite position. From Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, a speech by Mark Antony “For Brutus is an honorable man.”
Explanatory Argument – an argument which in which its postulates attempt to explain, provide analogy or try to show why or how something is or will be. May be confused with rhetoric due to it similar structure.
Poetry – an argument expressed inside the purity of art. The opposite of rhetoric. A passion which seeks alleviation of suffering and not the targeting of an opponent.
Outcome
Value – the quality and relevancy of an argument such that it provides for improvement in clarity, understanding, agreement, focuses or constrains an experiment, reduces a hypothesis set, counters misinformation, or alleviates suffering or ignorance.
Relevancy –The quality of an argument such that it contains social value.
Reduction – a method of science wherein the process of induction or deduction is employed to falsify, or through consilience, render a hypothesis as false or more highly unlikely and therefore no longer salient or relevant.
Critical Path – the sequence of most highly effective argument tests which serve to falsify, eliminate, reduce or provide best consilience inside a set of plausible arguments.
Clarity – the ability of an argument to lend quality and locution capability to future critical path logic, and/or which allows such to be followed, replicated or understood more easily by another party.
Qualified Argument – a level of clarity and agreement which allows for a least set of differences, when full agreement is not achieved between expertise bearing parties.
Agreement – when two expertise bearing parties subsequent to an argument, agree on its basis, quality and outcomes.
Explanitude – the condition where a theory has been pushed so hard as authority, or is developed upon the basis of pseudoscience such as class struggle theory or psychology of sex, that it begins to become the explanation for, or possesses an accommodation for every condition which is observed or that the theory domain addresses. A theory which seems to be able to explain everything, likely explains nothing.
Argument Theory – the formal and informal methods of evaluating the robust, weak or fatal nature of argument. In order of importance, the six elements are
Formal Strength
1. Coherency – argument is expressed with elements, relationships, context, syntax and language which conveys actual probative information
2. Soundness – premises support or fail to adequately support its proposed conclusion
3. Formal Theory – strength and continuity of predicate and logical calculus (basis of formal fallacy)
4. Inductive Strength – sufficiency of completeness and exacting inference which can be drawn
Informal Strength
5. Circumstantial Strength – validity of information elements comprised by the argument or premises
6. Integrity of Form/Cogency – informal critique of expression, intent or circumstantial features
Argument from Incredulity – also known as argument from personal incredulity or appeal to common sense, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one’s personal or common expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.
Argument Gravitation, The Principle of – the principle which cites that, a person who tends to argue in ignoratio elenchi, trivial, straw man, red herring or other non-critical path argument techniques, will always and eventually gravitate to a personal focus, personal attacks, insults or ad hominems. If they do not ultimately get there, it is not because they did not want to. This process is an indication of the arguer’s inability/inadequacy to address the subject in the first place.
argumentum ad ignorantiam (Argument from Ignorance) – a species of assertion in which one contends that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been researched, studied by science or proven true.
argumentum ad populum – appeal to popular or apparently popular opinion; appeal to the majority. The fallacy of attempting to infer or induce acceptance of a conclusion by citing that the conclusion is shared by large or expert groups of persons. Alternately arousing the feelings, prejudices, or interests of a person based upon their political party, a mob, or any large group of people. Two common corollary fallacies are the bandwagon and the snob appeal fallacies.
As Science as Law Fallacy – conducting science as if it were being reduced inside a court of law or by a judge (usually the one forcing the fake science to begin with), through either declaring a precautionary principle theory to be innocent until proved guilty, or forcing standards of evidence inside a court of law onto hypothesis reduction methodology, when the two processes are conducted differently.
Asch Conformity – participants in an argument fed false or misleading information, who conform to the majority opinion on at least half of these misleading ideas, are reported as reacting with what gestalt psychologist Solomon Asch called a “distortion of perception”. These participants, who make up a distinct minority (social skeptics or sycophants inside public discourse), will express belief that misleading or false answers are correct, unaware as to the actual veracity or lack thereof, of the answers originating from the majority to which they have paid reverence (appeal to authority).
Associative Condemnation – the attempt to link controversial subject A with personally disliked persons who support subject B, in an effort to impute falsehood to subject B and frame its supporters as whackos. Guilt through bundling association and lumping all subjects into one subjective group of believers. This will often involve a context shift or definition expansion in a key word as part of the justification. Spinning the idea that those who research pesticide contribution to cancer, are also therefore flat Earther’s.
Atheist’s Conundrum – if I research evidence which backs atheism, then I am pursuing science. If however, I research any topic which relates to a context of higher order beings, then I am a theist and have conducted pseudoscience. Therefore the only way to pursue science is to be an Atheist.
autoaufheben appeal – a doubled meaning or self-canceling argument: it means both to cancel (or negate) and to preserve at the same time. A form of rhetorical argument which serves to cancel itself through apologetic issued simultaneously with its primary claim. A person who says they are not a thief, while simultaneously demanding money from you at knife-point.
Base Rate Bozo – when employing a baseline reference from the past produces a forbidden observation – this poseur will make up some generalized claim about the ‘past not predicting the future’ and give it a sophist name (Base Rate Fallacy) to intimidate those who do not understand.
bedeutungslos – meaningless. A proposition or question which resides upon a lack of definition, or which contains no meaning in and of its self.
Begging the Point – the framing of a question from a desired answer in such a fashion that its desired conclusion is the only viable answer.
Bergson’s Razor – one sign that an arguer or opponent does not really understand nor care about the argument at hand or that they secretly doubt their own argument elements. This can be found inside the tactic of a discrediting refutation or disputation incorporating a multiplicity of approaches and reasons as its basis. In this case, either the opponent did not understand that only one counter is required to refute an argument, if done properly; or they did not really believe their counter point in the first place, or were only seeking to personally embarrass or discredit their opponent – and not really dialectic the issue at hand.
Bias Error – when using bias, fallacy or judgement error proclamations to condemn opinions of those who disagree with you, solely to push political, social or economic goals inside decision sets which are not clearly addressed by empirical or scientific backing.
Bifallication – when one is forced to choose between two answers in a false dilemma, and there is a great likelihood or ignorance that both choices are also false themselves. A middle, more likely ground is ignored because of fanaticism influences and social polarization.
Bifurcation Proof – when one makes up or spins an overly negative representation of another person’s position or a set of ideas/observations, and contends that this condemnation, and an implied sleight-of-hand bifurcation, therefore proves their own position or stands as scientific proof of their own idea.
Bootstrapping (Index/Strength) – from the tall tales about the 18th-century German nobleman Baron Munchausen and his wartime exploits against the Ottoman Empire; specifically wherein he pulled himself up out of a well by his own bootstraps. A computational technique for estimating a statistical set for which the underlying distribution is unknown, or a sampling technique which estimates sampling distribution by repeatedly sampling data from the original observation set. It is most often employed as a means to estimate confidence levels of clade structures within a phylogenetic tree in genetics. However, it can be used to describe an inference which is measured as to its risk in draw. A 50 Bootstrap index bears significant risk, whereas a 90/100 Bootstrap index implies a greater degree of confidence in the inference, and therefore less risk.
Boundary Semantics – (a form of appeal to infinity or plenitude) – pushing the meaning of a term (such as ‘proof’ or ‘knowledge’) into highly or specially plead realms of extreme definition variants, in order to provide an special pleading exception out of any or every argument. This is never a form of being semantically precise, despite a temptation to regard these types of extreme definitions as such. Rather is simply form of equivocation based explanitude.
Brechung Effect (German: Refraction Effect) – a principle which cites that, the further away an expert in a field is from personally conducting recent or field application/observation practice (eg. seeing patients or direct testing/observation/measurement/excavation, etc.), the more confident, appeal to credential, appeal to authority, arrogant, demeaning, and/or insistent will be their assertions.
brevis lapsus (‘Word Salad’ Fallacy) – the inability to understand technical or precise writing, mistaking it for constituting a pleonasm. This in favor of simplistic writing which is, either with or without the intent of the opponent, subsequently rendered vulnerable to equivocation. An accusation made when a dilettante person fails to understand philosophical or technical writing, wherein the base argument or its requisite vocabulary reside completely over the head of the individual who started the argument to begin with.
Bridgman Point – the point at which a principle can no longer be dumbed-down any further, without sacrifice of its coherency, accuracy, salience or context.
Bridgman Point Paradox – if you understood, I could explain it to you – but then again – if you understood I wouldn’t have to explain it to you.
Broken Window Parable (Bastiat Fallacy) – actually a counter to the broken window parable which proposes that even in disaster, an economy profits on the repair and recovery. The Bastiat Fallacy points out the logical failure of such reasoning. Proposed by Nineteen Century French economist Frederic Bastiat, the fallacy states that the economic benefit derived from recovering from disaster is never superior to the economic benefit which was lost as opportunity cost, as a result of sacrificing the resources sacrificed in the disaster, nor committed to repair the damage or fix the disaster. The economic benefit of war is never compared to what was lost as a result of the war.
Broken Window Certainty Parable (Bastiat’s Certainty Fallacy) – a modified form of the Broken Window Parable, wherein the claim is made that harm imparted by a bad actor, or disaster cannot be claimed to ‘have been going to happen anyway, even if good decisions were made’. If benefit from such a disaster cannot be claimed as a positive credit for the disaster (Broken Window Parable), then neither can an argument that ‘harm would have happened anyway’ stand as a permissive nor partial exoneration of the disaster or bad action/decisions. Covid upheaval deaths, even though they might have happened under circumstances of good decision making, cannot be therefore deducted from the set of deaths which resulted from a reality of bad decision making.
Bucket Irrationality – a key sign of irrationality, resides in the circumstance whereupon, observing a problem inside a system – one contends that the entire system is evil and should be shut down. Moreover, the circumstance whereupon, identifying problems inside a topic, one declares it all to be ‘woo’ or ‘pseudoscience’.
Bundle Equivocation (Bundling) – when citing the detrimental aspects of a disliked subject, a method of deception where the cynic will list a series of likely flaws with one highly unlikely but pejorative flaw purposely intermixed in order to imply and impugn the subject targeted. Ron is slow at expression, not frugal with money or is a child molester, but we continue to evaluate Ron.
Caesar’s Wife (Must be Above Suspicion) – a principle inside the philosophy of skepticism which cites that a mechanism, research/polling effort, or study which bears an implicit a priori claim to innocence (i.e. soundness, salience, precision, accuracy and/or lack of bias/agency) must transparently and demonstratively prove this claim before being assumed as such, executed or relied upon as scientific.
Casuistry – the use of clever but unsound reasoning, especially in relation to moral questions; sophistry. Daisy chaining contentions which lead to a preferred moral outcome, by means of the equivocal use of the words within them unfolding into an apparent logical calculus – sometimes even done in a humorous, ironic or mocking manner. A type of sophistry.
Catalyseur – a conflict exploitation specialist, or any entity which stands to gain under the outcome of a lose-lose conflict scenario which they have served to create, abet or foment. Someone who acts as a third party to two sides in an argument or conflict, who advises about the ‘truth’ of the other party involved, respectively and urges an escalation of factors which drove the conflict to begin with.
Catch 22 (non rectum agitur fallacy) – the pseudoscience of forcing the proponent of a construct or observation, to immediately and definitively skip to the end of the scientific method and single-handedly prove their contention, circumventing all other steps of the scientific method and any aid of science therein; this monumental achievement prerequisite before the contention would ostensibly be allowed to be considered by science in the first place. Backwards scientific method and skipping of the plurality and critical work content steps of science.
Cause-Therapy Affirmation of the Consequent – when one operates from a belief or practice based upon the disinformed notion that, since a therapy is effective in reducing an effect, therefore the lack of that therapy is the cause of that effect. Placing a person in an ice-bath reduces dangerously high fever; therefore, fever is caused by lack of ice-baths. Fasting and HIIT exercise serve to reduce body mass index and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; therefore, high BMI and NAFLD are caused by too much consumption and not enough exercise.
celeber cavilla – a form of Truzzi Fallacy. A counter-claim which is specious in its assertion and usually ad hominem in its implication. However the counter-claim issuer employs it because they are under the false impression that since the accusation phrase is in such popular use, therefore the claim comes incumbent with immediate credibility in the offing, along with an assumed definition, evidence and acceptance.
Certitude Exploitation – a contention (such as ‘he is biased’) which is made about a person, for which evidence has a certitude of easily being found – however which also applies to everyone, or easily explains everything or nothing about that person, in reality. In similar principle to explanitude: A theory which explains everything or bears no risk in falsification, likely explains nothing.
Chasing One’s Own Tail – an argument, sophistry or casuistry which seeks to derive a predetermined conclusion by circularly referring back to itself as its basis for soundness. A form of circular reasoning where the appeal to itself is not as obvious or cascades into plenitude or god or forever or endless causality chains, or any another form of undefined or ludicrous realm of justification. Arguments such as atheism has no basis for its morality because one then just declares their morals to be right, as opposed to theism where god is the moral reference – which then ignores the fact that god also was simply declared as the moral reference. It is a distinction without a difference. An orphan question, attempting to solve a grand contention which mankind is wholly ill prepared to resolve, by means of ludicrous, unbounded and unsound proclamations.
Chekhov’s Gun – is a dramatic principle that states that every element in a fictional story must be necessary to support the plot or moral, and irrelevant elements should be excluded. It is used as part of a method of detecting lies and propaganda. In a fictional story, every detail or datum is supportive of, and accounted for, as to its backing of the primary agenda/idea. A story teller will account in advance for every loose end or ugly underbelly of his moral message, all bundled up and explained nicely – no exception or tail conditions will be acknowledged. They are not part of the story.
Chewbacca Defense – a tactic in which the aim of the argument seems to be to deliberately confuse rather than actually refute the case of the other side.
Circular Definition – Also called a god principle or definition. A definition which relies upon elements of itself in order to define itself; much akin to a god being defined as the only being which can define itself. For example, critical thinking (epistemic rationality) being defined as ‘ensuring that one visibly demonstrate that their beliefs/actions/thoughts fall in line with those of others who also are also epistemically rational’. An appeal to authority and circular reasoning, bundled into one error. The one who enforces a circular definition regarding human attributes, is pretending to the role of God.
Cognitive Bias Abuse – cognitive biases are useful lenses inside a domain where much is known. This not always the case in a domain where much is in plurality or darkness. Misemployment of a single or array of cognitive biases which are strategically positioned inside a fundamental attribution error framework spun concerning one’s opponents. Most often so as to defend an a priori agenda item, or to rule out a construct one disfavors – a way of using ‘science’ of psychology to essential prove or disprove anything you prefer – through authority-implying positioning of cognitive biases employed to reinforce one’s point and/or discredit others.
Coincidence Theory/Theorist – the reactionary theory of conformance or one who crafts such complicated and highly stacked ‘rational’ alternatives as to why an astounding observation can only be served by a conventional or conforming explanation. Usually comes with the adjunct claim that the exceptional observation cannot possibly exist since ‘it would require a conspiracy of X people, if indeed it were true.’ A form of sophistry and rhetoric used to defend a political or religious a priori assumption.
Combative Habituation – when one views every discussion as an argument which must be won, or is compelled to attack those they perceive to be in disagreement. To artificially force a conclusion in a valid issue of plurality, simply because one perceives they are in an argument against a member of a disdained group.
Compactifuscation – the merging of several disparate but associated concepts or definitions into one single descriptive term, so that epistemological weakness or strengths characteristic of a subset of the definitions held equivocally inside the term, can be ported over to the remaining set of definitions, without overt support or challenge in doing so. For instance the merging of sentience, awareness, meta-awareness, identity and meta-identity all into the term ‘consciousness’, so that studies on beetles can be ported over and apply to the hard problem of human consciousness.
Comparative Performance Paradox – a form of gaslighting which involves comparing a victim to peak performers when the victim’s activity benefiting others is evaluated, yet at the same time comparing the same victim to average performers when reward/compensation for their effort is apportioned back to them for that same effort.
Complexifuscation – the introduction of similar signals, inputs or measures, alongside a control measure or an experimental measure, in an attempt to create a ‘cloud of confusion or distraction’ around the ability to effect observation, control or measure of a targeted set of data. Preemption of a phenomena with in-advance flurries of fake hoaxes, in order obscure the impact, or jade the attention span of a target audience, around a genuine feared phenomena.
Complexity Tell – some problems are so complex that one must be well informed, highly intelligent and skilled in abstract critical path thinking, just to hold neutrality or a suspension of disposition about them. Those who arrive at conclusions or implied conclusions through inverse negation, should be observed for what they are.
Conflation of Treatment and Cause – the assumption that, because a medicinal, food or activity helps to mitigate the symptoms of a malady, therefore the treatment is necessarily addressing the cause of that malady. Assuming that because exercise and low caloric intake help reduce blood pressure and weight, that therefore low caloric activity and excess intake is quod erat demonstrandum the cause of those maladies.
contra ad populum – citing that, since an argument or preference for a conclusion is growing in popularity, it must therefore only be growing in such acceptance because of argumentum ad populum pressure, human foibles or through media promotion – and cannot possibly be growing because of the persistent and robust nature of the associated evidence.
Contrathetic Impasse – a paradoxical condition wherein multiple competing hypotheses and/or ad hoc plausible explanations bear credible inductive evidence and research case history – yet each/all hypotheses or explanations have been falsified/eliminated as being sufficiently explanatory for more than a minor portion of a defined causal domain or observation set. For instance, the MiHoDeAL explanation contains 5 very credible possible explanations for challenging phenomena. However, the sum total of those 5 explanations often only amounts to explaining maybe 5 – 15% of many persistent paranormal phenomena. The presumption that one of those explanations is comprehensively explanatory, is a trick of pseudoscience. Another new hypothesis is therefore demanded in the circumstance of a contrathetic impasse paradox.
Causes or influences which contribute to a contrathetic impasse:*
1. Foundational assumptions/investigation are flawed or have been tampered with.
2. Agency has worked to fabricate and promote falsifying or miscrafted information as standard background material.
3. Agency has worked to craft an Einfach Mechanism (Omega Hypothesis) from an invalid null hypothesis.
4. Agency has worked to promote science of psychology, new popular theory or anachronistic interpretation spins on the old mystery.
5. SSkeptics have worked to craft and promote simple, provisional and Occam’s Razor compliant conclusions.
6. Agency has worked to foist ridiculous Imposterlösung constructs in the media.
7. Agency has worked to foist shallow unchallenged ad hoc explanations in the media.
8. SSkeptics seem to have organized to promote MiHoDeAL constructs in the media.
9. There exist a set of repeatedly emphasized and/or ridiculously framed Embargo Hypotheses.
10. Agency has worked to promote conspiracy theory, lob & slam Embargo Hypotheses as an obsession target to distract or attract attack-minded skeptics to the mystery. The reason this is done is not the confusion it provides, rather the disincentive which patrolling skeptics place on the shoulders of the genuine skilled researcher. These forbidden alternatives may be ridiculous or indeed ad hoc themselves – but the reason they are raised is to act as a warning to talented researchers that ‘you might be tagged as supporting one of these crazy ideas’ if you step out of line regarding the Omega Hypothesis.
Contrathetic Inference Paradox – a condition where abductive and inductive inference point to one outcome or understanding, and deductive inference points in another antithetical direction entirely. Since science often begins with inductive study stemming from abductive understanding, it will dogmatically hold fast to an inductive understanding until a paradigm shift occurs – a result of the weight of deductive evidence pointing in a different direction. The job of fake skepticism is to ensure that this deductive evidence or any thought resulting from it, is never accepted into science in the first place.
Corber’s Hypocrisy – a skeptic who dismisses a large set of specific subjects and who realizes that under Corber’s Burden they must be 100% correct in such a role – speaks often about ‘following the evidence’ or that they ‘withhold conclusion’ in a state of neutrality over such subjects – when indeed such claims of behavior are not the case at all in their habit or practice.
Crank’s Tell – when you create something, there will be two classes of people who observe it. Those who appreciate it for what it brings to them and then might ask a question or move on – and those who are threatened by it. The latter can be detected in that they will not focus on the material itself, and instead will gravitate quickly towards attacking the creator of the material. Everyone can see this, except for the crank them self, who mistakenly believes they are taken as part of the former group.
Critical Elegance – the character and makeup of a construct or hypothesis, in that it both addresses every ‘must answer’ or critical path question along with many or most questions at hand, and achieves this without having to resort to assembling highly convoluted and risky stacks of conjecture in order to do so.
cul-de-suck – a topic or contention which at first appears to introduce a critical path of rational thought, however which inevitably traps its arguer inside a diversion of unresolvable mystery or paradox with no discernible boundary nor critical measure. The arguer is trapped inside a cul-de-sac, however is not aware of this because the topic boundary is soft or circular in logic; the arguer perpetually perceiving that its resolution is just around the corner or resides in the next advance in thought. Topics such as realism versus anti-realism or ‘turtles all the way down’ arguments, which appear at an academic level to bear merit, however which can never be resolved, and further bear no beneficial real world application nor consequentialist outcome.
culpant et victima – whenever a culprit is being concealed as to their introduction of a deleterious contribution, the victims will be assigned the blame for their handiwork.
damnatio memoriae – is a modern Latin phrase literally meaning “condemnation of memory”, advocating that a person or argument must be obliterated, erased and not remembered at all costs; regardless of its scientific merit. This is a chief function of social skepticism. It was a form of dishonor that could be passed by the Roman Senate on traitors or others who brought discredit to the Roman State. It was also employed by those who opposed Pharaoh Akhenaten, to effectively erase his reign from Egyptian history by Pharaohs and families ruling in The New Kingdom set of its Dynastic Periods.
Debunking – as C. S. Lewis noted, is an easy and lazy kind of ‘rationality’ that almost anyone can do and on any subject. Literally almost anything can be debunked. Debunking is a magic act whose misdirection tricks the magician instead of their audience. It is a form of bullshitting adorning the authoritative costume of denial. The debunker is spinning a facade of cherry-picked anecdotal anti-data, which is then used to linearly claim that something isn’t. This backwards method of outference runs anathema to the practices of science, evidence, and inference; a method plied by someone who will never debunk their own favored ideas and who possesses no interest in truth whatsoever.
Deliberately Obtuse – the act which a person puts on when they sense that a logical pathway may expose the weakness in their argument or are matched by an opponent who is better prepared or understands the subject to a level of skill which threatens their conclusion. A pretense of accusing the opponent of not being clear, of making pleonasm, or using a false analogy, when in fact the points being made are using concise, professional and accurate language. This is often exposed by an autoaufheben appeal wherein the person feigning the obtuseness, first claims that the argument is not understandable and then in the next breath, pretends they have found the flaw in it as well (something usually trivial or non-critical to the argument).
Demarcation of Skepticism – once plurality is necessary under Ockham’s Razor, it cannot be dismissed by means of skepticism alone.
Denial/Dissent Blurring – denial obfuscation efforts 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’.
Desire to Offend Bias – when one excuses or bears a condition wherein, the desire to offend a targeted party is so high or is of such a first priority that, it imbues or reveals a bias or agency all of its own. The ironic bigotry of highlighting a strawman bigotry in another targeted party or disliked race. See Hitchens’ Apology.
Dichotomy of Specific Descriptives – a form of panduction, wherein anecdotes are employed to force a conclusion about a broad array of opponents, yet are never used to apply any conclusion about self, or one’s favored club. Specific bad things are only done by the bad people, but very general descriptives of good, apply when describing one’s self or club. Specifics on others who play inside disapproved subjects, general nebulous descriptives on self identity and how it is acceptable ‘science’ or ‘skepticism’.
dietrologia – the staunch insistence that the obvious or repeatedly observed explanation, cannot possibly be the truth. Invoking as a first response and without any evidence, that ‘conspiracy theory’ spinning must be the motivation behind any idea other than a preferred conventional one. There is always something hidden behind the observer’s motives, a susceptibility to hoax, desire for a conspiracy theory, a misinterpretation of the data, a lie; ie. the dietro. See also MiHoDeAL fallacy.
Dissent Muzzling – on a controversial issue, a group holding power offering those who are issue stakeholders or voters, the ‘choices’ of 1. supporting their particular agenda, or 2. remaining silent. No option of dissent or free speech is offered. This is a favorite masquerade of oppressive 1984-styled tyranny – feigning a ‘choice’ to visibly support or remain silent.
Doubtcasting – a form of rhetorical critique in which a person casts inexpert doubt upon every facet of an opponent’s argument, while adding no value themself in the process – nor offering up their own ideas to the risk of critique. Raising doubt to perpetuate ignorance. A combative method of arguing without tendering the appearance of doing so, in the case where an agent is not interested in anything other than maligning their opponent or appearing to win an argument.
Dual-Burden Model of Inferential Ethics – the condition which is called ‘plurality’ by Ockham’s Razor exists once the sponsors of an alternative (to the null) idea or construct (does not have to be fully mature as a hypothesis) have achieved any one of the following necessity thresholds:
‣ a nexus of a persistent and robust alternative construct observation base
‣ potential falsification of the ‘null’ exists (and certainly if that null is not really a hypothesis itself)
‣ the intent contribution of agency has been detected
‣ the critical issue involved is a matter of public trust
‣ the contention involves placing involuntary or large counts of stakeholders at risk
‣ there exists a critical immaturity of the entailed observation domain.
Under such necessity, the hypothesis reduction circumstance exists wherein an actual null hypothesis must be developed, and further be shown to have comprehensive explanatory potential to justify its contention – it can no longer reside as simply the lazy ‘null’ argument. Conditions wherein the evidence is forcing the null sponsor to contend something other than simply ‘nuh-uh’ (nulla infantis). However beware, the discipline in such defense of the null better be just as solide-en-preuve as that discipline set which was previously demanded of alternative explanation sponsors.
Dunning-Kruger Error
Dunning-Kruger Abuse – a form of ad hominem attack. Inappropriate application of the Dunning-Kruger fallacy in circumstances where it should not apply; instances where every person has a right, responsibility or qualification as a victim to make their voice heard, despite not being deemed a degree, competency or title holding expert in that field.
Non-Equivalence of Competence – I don’t have to competent on a subject, in order to ascertain that you are incompetent on that subject.
The Dunning Line (or Inretio Line, Latin ‘ensnare’) – ‘Discipline your mind into a steel trap, but make sure it doesn’t serve to only entrap you.’ The line beyond which, one has become so skeptical, that they have become stupid in the process. One skilled at filtering out only that information which offends their feelings and sensibility – as opposed to being based upon actual evidence or science. Named for the minimum level of prowess one can possess and still barely function as a skeptic, as opposed to a babbling cynic.
Einfach Mechanism – an idea which is not yet mature under the tests of valid hypothesis, yet is installed as the null hypothesis or best explanation regardless. An explanation, theory or idea which sounds scientific, yet resolves a contention through bypassing the scientific method, then moreover is installed as truth thereafter solely by means of pluralistic ignorance around the idea itself. Pseudo-theory which is not fully tested at its inception, nor is ever held to account thereafter. An idea which is not vetted by the rigor of falsification, predictive consilience nor mathematical derivation, rather is simply considered such a strong, or Occam’s Razor (sic) stemming-from-simplicity idea that the issue is closed as finished science or philosophy from its proposition and acceptance onward. A pseudo-theory of false hypothesis which is granted status as the default null hypothesis or as posing the ‘best explanation’, without having to pass the rigors with which its competing alternatives are burdened. The Einfach mechanism is often accompanied by social rejection of competing and necessary alternative hypotheses, which are forbidden study. Moreover, the Einfach hypothesis must be regarded by the scientific community as ‘true’ until proved otherwise. An einfach mechanism may or may not be existentially true.
Elegance – an indicator that a person is promoting a lie in that it violates the parsimony of elegance. A lie is simple in its crafting and complicated to defend thereafter. The lie lacks in elegance; the expression of parsimony in design. A descriptive which identifies the inherent trait of a design or process, wherein it comprehensively and completely accomplishes all goals of its crafting in the fewest stacked set of entities possible, and not one entity less. The two design features indicating elegance:
1. Straightforwardness
2. Complexity (plural entities) – when critically necessary
Elegant systems are often breathtaking to behold, not because of their complexity, but rather because of their reach. I lie in contrast is reactionary and often gets even more complicated as time goes on.
Embargo Hypothesis (Hξ) – was the science terminated years ago, in the midst of large-impact questions of a critical nature which still remain unanswered? Is such research now considered ‘anti-science’ or ‘pseudoscience’?
Entscheiden Mechanism – the pseudoscientific or tyrannical approach of, when faced with epistemology which is heading in an undesired direction, artificially declaring under a condition of praedicate evidentia, the science as ‘settled’.
Poison Pill Hypothesis – the instance wherein sskeptics or agency work hard to promote lob & slam condemnation of particular ideas. A construct obsession target used to distract or attract attack-minded skeptics into a contrathetic impasse or argument. The reason this is done is not the confusion or clarity it provides, rather the disincentive which patrolling skeptics place on the shoulders of the genuine skilled researcher. These forbidden alternatives (often ‘paranormal’ or ‘pseudoscience’ or ‘conspiracy theory’ buckets) may be ridiculous or indeed ad hoc themselves – but the reason they are raised is to act as a warning to talented researchers that ‘you might be tagged as supporting one of these crazy ideas’ if you step out of line and do not visibly support the Omega Hypothesis. A great example is the skeptic community tagging of anyone who considers the idea that the Khufu pyramid at Giza might have not been built by King Khufu in 2450 bce, as therefore now supporting conspiracy theories or aliens as the builders – moreover, their being racist against Arabs who now are the genetic group which occupies modern Egypt.
Entscheiden Mechanism – the pseudoscientific or tyrannical approach of, when faced with epistemology which is heading in an undesired direction, artificially declaring under a condition of praedicate evidentia, the science as ‘settled’.
Equipollence Error – similar to false equivalence, this error pertains more to a situation where a substitute idea or method is assumed as being equal in force, power, or validity as the idea, principle or method it is replacing, and possessing the same effect or significance/meaning.
Equivocation Straw Man – using opponent’s habit or ease of simplicity in communication, to compress a principle into a single name or word, to further then equivocate that word or name and afford a pathway to then straw man his position.
erga omnes – Latin term referring to rights and obligations which are owed towards all. A limiting principle in copyright infringement which cites that one entity cannot defacto own as intellectual property a legal right or contract/agreement/legal statute principle through the tactic of holding possession of the copyright on the most accurate or legally cost expedient way in which it is expressed, written or described.
Eristic Argument – an argument which is posed with the goal of winning and embarrassing an opposing arguer, as opposed to seeking clarity, value or common ground. Usually stems from the arguer’s past psychological injury, narcissism and combative habituation.
Ethical Skeptic’s First Axiom – accurate, is simple. But that does not serve to make simple, therefore accurate. Among explanatory alternatives, elegance is always preferable over simplicity.
Ethical Skeptic’s Second Axiom – an idea cannot be a conspiracy theory, if it is also the null hypothesis.
Ethical Skeptic’s Third Axiom – danger trumps conspiracy. That which introduces a danger (risk and/or uncertainty) constitutes a more extraordinary claim (demands more evidence) than that which is deemed conspiracy theory.
Ethical Skeptic’s Axiom of Authority and Conspiracy – when an authority is not transparent and instead chooses to obfuscate, then Ockham’s Razor is immediately surpassed and conspiracy is part of the legitimate hypothesis base. One cannot be a victim of what they have earned.
Ethical Skeptic’s Axiom of Fact and Belief – the direct derivation of belief from mere ‘fact’ is one level of competence below ignorance.
Ethical Skeptic’s Axiom of Nelsonian Knowledge – in order to distort the truth, you first have to know it.
Ethical Skeptic’s Axiom of Truth and Suppression – only the truth demands active, trained and organized suppression. In a free thought and information society, lies will eventually falsify themselves. Suppression of an idea usually involves fear of some element or form of truth.
Ethical Skeptic’s Conspiracy Razor – never ascribe to happenstance or incompetence, that which coincidentally, surreptitiously and elegantly supports a preexisting agency. Never attribute to a conspiracy of millions, what can easily arise from a handful of the clever manipulating the ignorance of millions.
Ethical Skeptic’s Dictum of Formal Rhetoric – when one argues solely in formal rhetoric, an informal fallacy becomes a formal fallacy.
Ethical Skeptic’s Dictum of Malice and Human Rights – “Within the context of an impingement of human rights, incompetence and malice are indistinguishable.”
Ethical Skeptic’s Dictum of Rhetoric – what is posed in the rhetorical, can only be opposed with the rhetorical. One cannot answer a rhetorical question with objective reason and evidence.
Ethical Skeptic’s Dictum of Silence – silence cannot be refuted. However, ontological silence should not be confused with rhetorical silence.
Ethical Skeptic’s Fallacy of Comprehension – an absence of comprehension on your part is not evidence of absence nor invalidity.
Ethical Skeptic’s Law of Advanced Intelligence
Neti’s Razor – one cannot produce evidence from an entity which at a point did or will not exist, to also demonstrate that nothing aside from that entity therefore exists. The principle which serves to cut secular nihilism as a form of belief, distinct from all other forms of atheism as either philosophy or belief. From the Sanskrit idiom, Neti Neti (not this, not that). Therefore, you are wholly unqualified to instruct me that this realm is the only realm which exists, and efforts to do so constitute a religious activity.
I Am that I Am – that which possesses the unique ability to be able to define itself, renders all other entities disqualified in such expertise. There is no such thing as an expert in god. The principle which serves to cut theism as a form of belief, distinct from all other forms of belief as either philosophy or religion. From the Torah idiom, I Am (I Am that I Am or in Sanskrit, Aham Bramsmi). Therefore, if god existed, you are unqualified to tell me about it. So, theism falls into a lack of allow-for domain.
Non-Existence Definition – six questions form the basis of a definition: What, Where, When, How, Why, Who. The answers to this set of six questions still forms a definition of expert attributes, even if the answer to all six is ’empty set’. Therefore, when one applies the ethics of skepticism – one cannot formulate a definition which is specified as ’empty set’, without due empirical underpinning, a theory possessing a testable mechanism and a consilience of supporting research. We have none of this, and can make no claims to ‘non-existence’ expertise in god.
Principle of Indistinguishability – any sufficiently advanced act of benevolence is indistinguishable from either malevolence or chance.
The Ethical Skeptic’s Laws of Critical Path
Law of the Trivial – our tendency to devote disproportionate amounts of focus upon irrelevant matters, while leaving important matters unaddressed.
Law of Wallowing – our tendency to devote disproportionate amounts of time to the menial, while sacrificing important elements of process, or while serving no process at all.
Law of the Non-Sequitur – our habit of responding only to that which is immediately salient, while sacrificing or obfuscating the sequitur or broader issue at hand.
Law of the Non-Critical – our tendency to focus primarily upon cause-to-effect, however exercised inside a non-productive or dead-ended sequence of actions, or by no critical sequence whatsoever.
Ethical Skeptic’s Principle of Stakeholder Expertise – a stakeholder does not have to be a degree-holding expert in a discipline, in order to spot principal incompetence inside that discipline. As well, the stakeholder possesses the right of review of any claim which places the stakeholder under loss, harm, or risk.
The Ethical Skeptic’s Razor (The Antiwisdom of Crowds) – among competing alternatives, all other things being equal, prefer the one for which discussion or research is embargoed. Power, Politics, Narrative, and Profit demand a level of transparency which obviates that same burden upon mere dissent. What is enforced by Narrative, can also be dismissed as Narrative.
Ethical Skeptic’s Third Razor – dangerous demands greater level of evidence than does crazy. Any claim which exposes a stakeholder to risk, ignorance or loss of value – regardless of how ordinary, virtuous or correct – demands extraordinary evidence. For a skeptic, a person who claims to represent science and uses ‘facts’ to lie, misrepresent, manipulate, and push politics – is worse than someone who claims there is a Galactic Federation of Aliens out there. Dangerous is much worse than crazy.
Ethical Skeptic’s Fourth Razor – all things being equal, a claim to correctness (lack of misinformation) bears the greater chance of being a lie.
Exclusion Inversion – a version of autoaufheben appeal or circumstance wherein a counter-arguer cites that a subject is too complicated for their opponent to understand and therefore declare a valid opinion, however is not so complicated that they themself cannot determine that the opponent is also wrong. A complicated way of contending ‘Nuh-uh’ through appeal to one’s own personal brilliance, without saying as much.
Exclusion Without Exception Fallacy – the circumstance where one excludes an argument or datum, without making it clear that the criterion of exclusion being used would also exclude every possible argument or datum as well. A rhetorical method of changing the defining language regarding an issue so as to make an exception of a threatening observation or circumstance so that it no longer applies under the threat principle itself, without revealing the sleight-of-hand that the exception applies to literally almost everything. Similar in nature to distinction without a difference.
Existential Occam’s Razor Fallacy (Appeal to Authority) – the false contention that the simplest or most probable explanation tends to be the scientifically correct one. Suffers from the weakness that myriad and complex underpinning assumptions, based upon scant predictive/suggestive study, provisional knowledge or Popper insufficient science, result in the condition of tendering the appearance of ‘simplicity.’
Existential Popper Demarcation Error – citing something as a pseudoscience simply because one does not like the topic, or the topic has had pretend science performed in its name in the past.
Expert Relative Privation Error – the subjective contention that an avenue of research is not transparent to accountability inside science, that scientists are restricted from or too busy to access its undisciplined body or domain of evidence, or that the sponsors are hiding/ignoring counter evidence or are not forthcoming with their analysis. When in fact, such contentions are excuses foisted to countermand a need to pursue under the scientific method, a subject which has passed an Ockham’s Razor necessity of plurality.
Explanitude – the condition where a theory or approach has been pushed so hard as authority, or is developed upon the basis of unacknowledged domain uncertainty (such as Marxist class struggle theory or Freudian psychology of sex), that it begins to provide a basis of explanation for, or possesses an accommodation/justification for every condition which is observed or that the theory domain promotes. A theory or approach which seems to be able to explain everything, likely explains nothing (Popper/Pigliucci).
Expression Failure (Micro Should Express in the Macro) – an effect which is measured in a microcosm, and which applies to all circumstances, should necessarily express itself in measures involving a macrocosm. Failure to observe an effect on a large scale, which has been observed in a small scale, brings the small scale measure into question. If a month-long study reports that Jim saves $350 a month into his savings account, yet when examined two years later Jim only has $100 in his savings, the month-long study was wrong, no matter what precision, heuristic, p-value, or confidence interval was used to certify the microcosmic measure.
Extremophiles in my Teapot – excessive or undue worry which is generated through exploitation of a sophomoric knowledge of science, which can be up-spun into crafting boogey men which do not realistically exist in modern life. Any argument which promotes/exploits such worry and poses as ‘science’.
Extumary (Policy) – the condition wherein those in a position of authority must select for the most extreme of measures (typically inside an Overton Window) in order to allay perceptions of ineffectiveness, or deflect criticism that they did not take enough action. For example, initiating population lockdowns against a communicable illness, which bear a likelihood of being even more damaging than the illness itself – all for the mere appearance of ‘taking definitive action’ or illusions of possessing control of the situation. Inside this dynamic, the most extreme policy under consideration by science, usually ends up being the one implemented. Once implemented, any hint of its failure will thereafter be squelched.
Facile – appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial. Easily earned, arrived at or won – derived without the requisite rigor or effort.
Fact Ambiguity Dipole – the relation of a fact which carries along with it, usually through equivocation or semantics jousting, a false and misleadingly impugning implication which supports a point wishing to be made by a skeptic.
Fact Filibuster – the relating of a string of truisms and facts in a debate subject context, which are simply posed to distract focus, make the contender appear to be intelligent or well informed, or serve as an advisory caution to an opponent; however, which add no actual value to the actual point of contention at hand.
Factcidental – facts which are correct, but only by accident or which possess no real sequitur relationship with the discussion/issue context or logical calculus.
Fallacy Error – arguer detects a condition of being wrong and incorrectly deems this condition to constitute a ‘fallacy’. When an arguer finds an argument assertion to be wrong and declares the incorrect conclusion, error, mistake or lie to constitute a ‘fallacy’. When in reality, a fallacy is nothing but a weakness or flaw in an argument, soundness, logical calculus, structure or form – and has nothing actually to do with the validity of its assertion or conclusion.
Fallacy Fallacy (Argument from Fallacy) – arguer detects a fallacy in argument and declares therefore the person to be ‘wrong’ in assertion as well. When an arguer employs either a formal, or even more an informal fallacy, to stand as the basis to declare a whole subject or assertion in argument to be therefore, false. A formal fallacy or redress on the basis of soundness or induction inference, only serves to invalidate an opponent’s argument structure. All three flaws tender nothing regarding verity of the argument’s assertion or conclusion itself, which may or may not be independently also true. As well, any instance wherein a circumstantial, expression, personal or informal critique or other informal fallacy is inappropriately cited as a mechanism to invalidate an opponent’s argument or stand as basis for dismissal of a subject.
Fallacy of Division/Composition – a form of faulty reasoning which appeals to the existence of internal disagreements or factions within a group as evidence that the group’s argument is collectively wrong, invalid, or weak in comparison to a specific antithetical argument. The existence of religious divisions for example does not serve to invalidate the construct of spirituality, nor promote nihilist atheism as the stronger or necessary bifurcated alternative.
Fallacy of Excluded Exceptions – a form of data skulpting in which a proponent bases a claim on an apparently compelling set of confirming observations to an idea, yet chooses to ignore an also robust set of examples of a disconfirming nature. One chisels away at, disqualifies or ignores large sets of observation which are not advantageous to the cause, resulting only seeing what one sought to see to begin with.
Fallacy of Exclusion (Fallacy of Suppressed or Isolated Evidence) – One of the basic principles of argumentation is that a sound argument is one which presents all the relevant, and especially critical-path, evidence. A debunker will seek to isolate one single facet of an observation and then pretend that it is weak, when stripped of its corroborating observations, context, and facets of credibility. This is the warning flag that a pseudo-scientific method is at play.
Fallacy of Existential Privation – a claim that counters a person’s concern about a scientific issue with ‘Why haven’t you solved the problem then?’ – when raising an objection in science or society does not have to be qualified by having also solved the problem in another way.
Fallacy of Interest Conflict – a condition wherein a stakeholder bearing an opinion inside a legitimately plural scientific or public-impact disagreement, is falsely accused of bearing a conflict of interest for any form of desire to protect from harm or ruin their family, business, home, or those they hold dear. Ironically, the accusation of ‘conflict of interest’ in such circumstance, often itself constitutes a suppression of human rights (an action which can itself bear a conflict of interest).
Fallacy of Relative Privation – claiming that science is only the property of scientists. Dismissing an avenue of research due its waste of scientists’ time and to the existence of more important, but unrelated, problems in the world which require priority research.
Fallacy of Scientific Composition – The fallacy of contending explicitly or implicitly that legitimate science consists only as a set of approved or published studies. The failure to realize that professionals making trained observations in their field and operating environment, are more 1. timely, 2. accurate, and 3. scientific than studies which try and replicate the same through skeptic, academic, or cubicle work, even when followed by peer review.
False Dilemma – committed when one implies that sufficient data exists such that a choice must now be made between a constrained subset of options, when no such threshold of data actually exists and often when the subset of options is also falsely constrained.
False Domain Equivalence – a form of ambiguity slack exploitation wherein one equates the probability metrics which can be derived from a qualified, constrained or specific domain or circumstance, to be comparable to the use of ‘probability’ inside a broad domain or one lacking Wittgenstein parameters, constraints or descriptives.
False Syllogism – A syllogism is a structured attempt at deductive reasoning, through argument constraint by two sequitur, major and minor contentions, bounding an argument towards a single conclusion. In the instance where either major or minor argument are not truly deductive or have not eliminated every variant of condition, the syllogism is not a valid basis for inference. In other words a syllogism purports to be deductive. However in the instance of a false syllogism, the logic has not falsified all alternatives – so the syllogism has failed in its deductive soundness.
Fictitious Burden of Proof – declaring a ‘burden of proof’ to exist when such an assertion is not salient under science method at all. A burden of proof cannot possibly exist if neither the null hypothesis or alternative theories nor any proposed construct possesses a Popper sufficient testable/observable/discernible/measurable mechanism; nor moreover, if the subject in the matter of ‘proof’ bears no Wittgenstein sufficient definition in the first place (such as the terms ‘god’ or ‘nothingness’).
fictus scientia – assigning to disfavored ideas, a burden of proof which is far in excess of the standard regarded for acceptance or even due consideration inside science methods. Similarly, any form of denial of access to acceptance processes normally employed inside science (usually peer review both at theory formulation and at completion). Request for proof as the implied standard of science – while failing to realize or deceiving opponents into failing to realize that 90% of science is not settled by means of ‘proof’ to begin with.
Flaw of Identity – mis-employment of the first classical law of Greek thought, regarding essence. Falsely contending that two things sharing a unique set of characteristic qualities or features, are indeed the same thing; or conversely that two things that have different essences are different things.
Fox News Flush – citing something as wrong because it was also reported on Fox News (or other appropriate news outlet disdained by highly political minded people).
Frank’s Law – under fundamentalist oppression, precaution will always be spun as anti-ism.
Frankenstein’s Monster Fallacy – an interweaving of cherry picking and straw man fallacies, wherein the arguer assembles a patchwork of disparate and conflicting opposing positions, both valid and straw man, to create a fabricated, monstrous argument that doesn’t accurately represent any single position or poses anything aside from their own position in the most ludicrous light.
Fundamental Attribution Bias – when one considers the traits of another to stem from the disposition of that individual such that it may affect that person’s behavior as opposed to situational factors; yet views their own behavior as stemming from chiefly situational factors.
Fundamental Attribution of Doubt Bias – when one views skepticism inside one’s own disposition as constituting justifiable doubt, yet views skepticism in another as constituting conspiracy theory. When one’s position is held solely because it is backed by an institution or person which cannot be questioned outside the context of conspiracy – this amounts to an appeal to authority.
furtivis miraculo Fallacy – give us one free miracle, and we’ll explain all the rest. The scientific pretense of condensing all the magic involved in one’s epistemology into one single comprehensively supportive and necessary miracle. Based on the philosophical premise that one comprising ridiculous assumption is more believable than a plurality of such assumptions. When this is done by a scientist, say a neurologist, who reaches into the discipline of cosmology, in order to draw back a miracle or theory they don’t really understand (‘eternalism’ for instance), in order to have it bolster a theory they are trying to push inside their own discipline (such as there is no such thing as free will), so that then they can enforce a religion in a completely different domain (nihilism) – this is a fallacy and a lie on top of it as well, through misrepresentation of a miracle of projection as constituting ‘science’.
Genetic Fallacy – an informal fallacy of irrelevance regarding the origins of an argument or the person making the argument, wherein a conclusion is suggested or rejected based solely on someone’s or something’s history, origin, or source and/or rather than its current meaning or context.
Genocide Argument – an argument which supports a position where, whether known or not known through means of denial based ignorance or manipulative rational ignorance, genetic sub-groups are impacted through broadsweeping application of forced consumption of a substance. Forced consumption can involve means of concealment in a significant portion of human food or environment, ingestion mandatory for participation in normal public activities, or mandatory ingestion by law. A genocide argument is always framed, defended and justified as being science.
Gish Gallop – a tactic of argument wherein the arguer skips through subject after subject or data point after data point, in order to tender the appearance of a barrage of sound unchallengeable argument.
Godwin’s Gaffe – the habit of some Social Skeptics of repeatedly referring to Godwin’s Law, as a defense against methodological comparatives of fake skeptics to the Nazi or Communist Parties, while subsequently bearing no compunction whatsoever to comparing such oppressive institutions to anyone who disagrees with they themselves.
Granger Causality – a refutation of a post hoc ergo propter hoc claim in that a variable X that evolves over time Granger-causes another evolving variable Y if predictions of the value of Y based on its own past values and on the past values of X are better than predictions of Y based only on Y’s own past values (or especially another assumed causality variable X2). Granger causality may not indicate direct causation; however suggests a common mechanism of some type via a fingerprint signal means which is much stronger than mere correlation.
Gresham’s Law of Information – Gresham’s Law is a monetary principle stating that “bad money drives out good.” In the currency of information, bad information will also displace good information into private chambers of power or collections of artifact hoarders, while the pervasive currency of bad information, fake news, and noise will inhabit the public commons, naturally biasing its narrative towards a lack of soundness.
Hegelian Deception – a form of employment of the Hegelian Dialectic where a fourth party deceiver manipulates the dialectic process to guide external witnesses to synthesize a false truth that excludes an actual hidden tertiary element. In Hegelian philosophy, the dialectical process involves the interaction of opposing ideas (thesis and antithesis) leading to a higher level of understanding or resolution (synthesis). In this scenario, the deceiver sets up a primary event (thesis) and a secondary event (antithesis) to create a false narrative or synthesis that relates the false perception that a higher level of understanding has been achieved, and more importantly diverts attentions from the actual truth (a tertiary event).
Hegelian Dialectic – three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction; an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis; and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis. In more simplistic terms, one can consider it thus: proposition → anti-proposition → solution. In a Machiavelli Solution, a third party creates and/or exploits the self-sublation condition of this bifurcation in thesis, in order to sustain a conflict between two opposing ideas or groups, and eventually exploit those two groups’ losses into its own gain in power.
Hempel’s Paradox – an observation supporting consilience on a constrained proposition bears inductive evidential merit; however, an observation in support of its unconstrained contraposed equivalence argument is not considered a basis for consilience or evidence in support by induction. Evidence of absence or presence in the case of an unconstrained question is not as weighty as evidence in support of a constrained question of the same ilk. The former many times becoming the basis for intuition which can serve to imbue bias or mislead.
Herculean Burden of Proof – placing a ‘burden of proof’ upon an opponent which is either arguing from ignorance (asking to prove absence), not relevant to science or not inside the relevant range of achievable scientific endeavor in the first place. Assigning a burden of proof which cannot possibly be provided/resolved by a human being inside our current state of technology or sophistication of thought/knowledge (such as ‘prove abiogenesis’ or ‘prove that only the material exists’). Asking someone to prove an absence proposition (such as ‘prove elves do not exist’).
Hidden Miracle Error – when a proponent develops a purported scientific epistemology by employing a less visible but nonetheless equally extravagant construct to underpin that cosmology – eg. ‘god’ or a fantastic unexplainable occurrence which cannot be approached by method and measurement, now renders my cosmology as coherent. It relates to the phrases ‘a hidden miracle is more scientific than an expressed one’ and ‘grant me one miracle and I can explain all the rest.’
The High & Low Poseur – do A, then B was the right choice. Do B, then A was the right choice. Do A and B, you are over-complicating. They are afraid to risk being wrong, or lack the skill to create their own work. They always know ‘how it should really be done’, but never can seem to actually do it themself – and rather, only bear the ability to critique ideas they disdain or the work of others.
Hitchens’ Apology (Desire to Offend Bias) – when one uses Christopher Hitchens’ apologetics to excuse/cover for a bias. Using the familiar Hitchens quote, valid in its own right, to excuse a condition wherein, the desire to offend is so high or is a first priority such that, it imbues or reveals a bias all of its own. A way of masquerading agency under the apologetic “If someone tells me that I’ve hurt their feelings, I say, ‘I’m still waiting to hear what your point is.’ In this country I’ve been told, ‘That’s offensive,’ as if those two words constitute an argument or a comment. Not to me they don’t.”
Höchste Mechanism – when a position or practice, purported to be of scientific basis, is elevated to such importance that removing the rights of professionals and citizens to dissent, speak, organize or disagree (among other rights) is justified in order to protect the position or the practice inside society.
Hume’s Razor Error – the false presumption that a seemingly miraculous explanation is assumed to be false if any alternative explanation provided is less miraculous. Suffers from penultimate set fallacy, “Occam’s” Razor error, and the idea that by the simple proposition of a conforming alternative explanation, one can then complete the scientific method and tender a conclusion purported to be of scientific origin, based solely upon philosophical conjecture.
Humping the Elephant – an extension of the familiar ‘elephant looks different from every angle metaphor;’ wherein a fake skeptic is not actually trying to find out the truth, rather is simply there for personal benefit or agenda promotion. In this context having their way with the elephant rather than trying to find out what it is.
Hyperbolic False Equivalence – using an analogy of an extreme or non-sequitur nature to exaggerate in eliciting a principle regarding an issue under discussion. For example stating that gardening is to farming as woodworking is to home contracting. It exaggerates the point being made, usually in serving an underlying agenda.
Hyperepistemology – transactional pseudoscience in the employment of extreme, linear, diagnostic, inconsistent, truncated, excessively lab constrained or twisted forms of science in order to prevent the inclusion or consideration of undesired ideas, data, observations or evidence.
Hypocrisy of Plenitude – when one employs the principle of plenitude in explaining the reality of a person’s existence and self identity (you simply are experiencing one of an infinity of potentials), which is then negated by the appeal to authority of mandating severe constraint of potentials in explaining that same person’s ontological future or past (you have never lived before, nor shall you have any afterlife). Especially when one is claiming that this hypocrisy is somehow derived from ‘evidence’ or science.
Iatrogenic Skepticism – skepticism which serves to mislead science in its role as the philosophy underlying science. Skepticism which is actually the cause of ignrance rather than a mechanism helping reduce the entropy of understanding. Skepticism which results in such things as flat Earth theory, Moon landing denial, useless supplement claims and risky corporate science injury denial.
ideam tutela – agency. A questionable idea or religious belief which is surreptitiously promoted through an inverse negation. A position which is concealed by an arguer because of their inability to defend it, yet is protected at all costs without its mention – often through attacking without sound basis, every other form of opposing idea.
“If I Only Had a Brain” Straw Man – an argument which would have constituted a straw man argument had the claimant understood it to begin with, however appears only to stem from the arguer’s inability to grasp the issue or logical calculus under discussion or contention.
ignoratio elenchi – a misdirection in argumentation rather than a weak inference. A misrepresentation of the logical calculus or evidence for an opponent’s claim, so as to frame the opponent’s contention in the poorest light.
Bifurcation Proof – when one makes up or spins an overly negative representation of another person’s position or a set of ideas/observations, and contends that this condemnation, and an implied sleight-of-hand bifurcation, therefore proves their own position or stands as scientific proof of their own idea.
Appeal to Ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent’s argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.
Chewbacca Defense – a tactic in which the aim of the argument seems to be to deliberately confuse rather than actually refute the case of the other side.
Red Herring – presentation of an argument that may or may not be logically valid on its own, but distracts the discussion away from a failing argument, as well as failing nonetheless to address the context of the issue in question or address its logical validity.
Relative Privation (also known as “appeal to worse problems” or “not as bad as”) – an informal fallacy of dismissing an argument or complaint due to the existence of more important problems in the world, regardless of whether those problems bear relevance to the initial argument. A form of ignoratio elenchi argument.
ingens vanitatum Argument – citing a great deal of expert irrelevance. A posing of ‘fact’ or ‘evidence’ framed inside an appeal to expertise, which is correct and relevant information at face value; however which serves to dis-inform as to the nature of the argument being vetted or the critical evidence or question being asked.
Straw Man Fallacy – misrepresentation of either an ally or opponent’s position, argument or fabrication of such in absence of any stated opinion. Exists in several forms:
Straw Man Argument – crating of or logical calculus under, an argument which either does not exist, is irrelevant or is manipulated and twisted into a different form by a proponent.
Straw Man Conformance – the idea that since a person or group believes or considers subject A to be a potentiality, then an opponent insists that they therefore have endorsed extreme misrepresentations of subject A as well.
Straw Man Profiling – profiling of an individual based on an extreme or misrepresented version of their position. Any man can be made to appear irrational and vile, if his opponents only are allowed to speak on his behalf.
Scare Crow Fabrication – crafting of a position or stance on an issue which an opponent has never tendered, implied or stated. An argument fabricated from complete fiction and used to dissuade persons from viewing that opponent in a positive light.
“If I Only Had a Brain” Straw Man – an argument which would have constituted a straw man argument had the claimant understood it to begin with, however appears only to stem from the arguer’s inability to grasp the issue or logical calculus under discussion or contention.
Straw Man Egoism – a self-focused belief that every argument raised by an opponent is a straw man issued at them personally. Especially when the argument is common inside the domain being discussed.
Illusion of Choice Fallacy (or two-sided coin analogy) – when an argument is made that one has at their avail a choice between P -> Q or Q -> P, yet there is not discernible nor critical difference between either argument, or two alternatives are presented which are essentially the same thing, or two issues are simply two sides of the same coin. It is a way of tendering the appearance of a choice, when indeed there is not really one.
Imposterlösung Mechanism – the cheater’s answer. A disproved, incoherent or ridiculous contention, or one which fails the tests to qualify as a real hypothesis, which is assumed as a potential hypothesis anyway simply because it sounds good or is packaged for public consumption. These alternatives pass muster with the general public, but are easily falsified after mere minutes of real research. Employing the trick of pretending that an argument domain which does not bear coherency nor soundness – somehow (in violation of science and logic) falsely merits assignment as a ‘hypothesis’. Despite this, most people hold them in mind simply because of their repetition. This fake hypothesis circumstance is common inside an argument which is unduly influenced by agency. They are often padded into skeptical analyses, to feign an attempt at appearing to be comprehensive, balanced, or ‘considering all the alternatives’.
Impulse Inference (Religious Doctrine) – this is a twisted and sick-minded form of metaphysical selection or faith. The only practice set which operates under a masquerade in this set of inference species and genres, is the practice of religious assumption, doctrine and dogma. This of course includes the habits of those who practice social skepticism. These religions will attempt to pass their doctrines as species of logical inference – through a process known as apologetics. This is a type of pathology wherein the participant very desperately wants to seek validation for a taught or personally adopted set of metaphysical conclusions. This is not truly an actual form of inference.
In Extremis – a condition of rising or extreme danger wherein a decision which is dependent upon an outcome of scientific study, must be made well in advance of any reasonable opportunity for peer review and/or consensus to be developed. This is one of the reasons why science does not dictate governance, but rather may only advise it. Science must ever operate inside the public trust, especially if that trust requires expertise from multiple disciplines.
in medias res – a process, research initiative or argument which begins its discourse in the middle of a series of sequential questions as opposed to starting with foundational ones and/or outlining a specific objective. This does not serve to guarantee an errant outcome, however often can waste enormous amounts of time and attention trying to resolve questions which are orphan, ill timed or unsound given the current knowledge base. Can also be used as a method of deception. See also non rectum agitur fallacy.
Incomplete Comparison – in which insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison of arguments between a disproved one, and a disfavored one an opponent is attempting to debunk.
“Inconclusive” is a Conclusion – the fake sleuth is desperate to issue a conclusion and obtain club credit for having reached it. Their goal is to stamp the observation (what they incorrectly call a ‘claim’) with the word ‘Debunked’. However, they also know that most neutral parties have this trick figured out now. So they prematurely reach a conclusion which appears to be skeptically neutral, but tenders the same desired result: Inconclusive. It is like declaring two opponents in a field game to be of equal team strength through a tie, 0 to 0 – by means of simply turning on the scoreboard and walking off the field after 15 seconds of play. By means of an inconclusive status, the observation can be neutralized and tossed upon a ‘never have to examine this again’ heap. Defacto, this is the same as ‘debunked’. It is a trick, wherein, the fake skeptics takes on the appearance of true skeptical epoché, while still condemning an observation or subject, wherein it is nothing of the sort.
Inductive Hyperbolic Leap – when a claim is put forward which is unsound through conjecturing far in excess of its supportive inductive inference. A claim which is made to falsification of all antithetical ideas through mere mild inductive research in its support. Jumping off a cliff and holding one’s arms out and making the claim to have invented flying. Finding a gene influence upon an illness and making the claim that the illness is therefore solely genetic in origin. Finding one case of hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy autism and assuming that therefore all autism therefore stems from hypoxic birth, etc.
Infinity as Science – any argument where an appeal to infinity is spun as constituting a superior scientific explanation, in comparison to, and in an effort to avoid examining the underlying assumptions which precipitated the invalid perception/belief that an event or series of events are extremely rare or statistically next to impossible in the first place.
Infinity of the Gaps – any argument where an appeal to infinity is simply employed to avoid the appearance of using a ‘god of the gaps’ explanation, when in reality the employment of infinity as the explanation for an infinitesimally remote chance occurrence is virtually as ridiculous or lacking in epistemological merit as is the god explanation – see Appeal to Elves.
Informal Counter-Narrative – the principle that cites that narrative rhetoric lacking formal structure can sufficiently be counter argued by informal fallacy and logic. What is propositioned without formal basis, can be counter-argued without formality.
ingens vanitatum – (Latin: ingens ‘vast’ and vanitatum ‘archives’ or ‘vanities’) – knowing a great deal of irrelevance (noise: lack of relevance) and/or inconsequence (smoke & mirrors: lack of salience), or the citing of such disinformation. A form of rhetoric through Nelsonian knowledge of most facets of a subject and most of the latest propaganda therein. A condition which bears irony however, in that this supervacuous, irrelevant, or inconsequential set of knowledge stands as all that composes the science, or all that is possessed by the person making a claim to knowledge. A useless set of information which serves only to displace any relevance, salience, or logical calculus of the actual argument, principle or question at hand. The skillful exploitation of irrelevance and/or inconsequence which serves to disinform or deceive.
ingens vanitatum Argument – citing a great deal of expert irrelevance. A posing of ‘fact’ or ‘evidence’ framed inside an appeal to expertise, which is correct and relevant information at face value; however which serves to dis-inform as to the nature of the argument being vetted or the critical evidence or question being asked.
Intentionality Fallacy – the insistence that the ultimate meaning of a construct, idea or ideology must be consistent with the intention of the person from whom the original idea, concept or communication originated; and that no new or empirically improved version of its understanding may be tested.
Interrogative Biasing – ask the wrong question and you are assured to arrive at the right answer. A method of faking science by asking an incomplete, statistical absence, non-probative, ill sequenced or straw man question, fashioned so as to achieve a result which implies a specific desired answer; yet is in no way representative of plenary or ethical science on the matter under consideration.
intra ludio – or the telltale of the inside actor. If someone is truly an expert proponent of a subject, then that proponent should also be able to offer his subject’s most profound expert critique as well – and be forthcoming about unanswered daunting questions inside that subject. The key is to watch for this honesty in conviction – the faker does neither of these things – an only defends his precious argument. As an evolutionist, I do not believe that you support evolution, nor really even know it – if you cannot offer up a cogent and accurate summation of its current challenges and shortfalls. You may offer them up as ‘gaps’, but to totally ignore them tells the ethical skeptic that their opponent is both ignorant and dishonest as well.
Invalid Comparison – in which equivocating, inconsistent or errant information is provided to attempt a complete comparison of arguments between a disproved one, and a disfavored one an opponent is attempting to debunk.
Inverse Negation Fallacy (of Presumption) – the asymmetric strategy of promoting a desired idea through cancellation of all its antithetical concepts and competing ideas. A method which seeks to undermine and censor any communication, research, or construct which runs counter to a favored idea, often through framing such activity as ‘pseudoscience’ or ‘conspiracy theory’. A surreptitious effort to promote a favored idea without acknowledging it, nor appearing to be in advocacy for it, nor undertaking the risk of exposing that favored idea to the scientific method or critical scrutiny. This because the implicitly favored model itself, although promoted as TruthTM, often is unethical or bears very little credibility when examined stand-alone.
Is-Does Fallacy – a derivative of the philosophical principle that one does not have to framework what something is, in order to study what it does. The error of attempting to conform science and epistemology to the notion that one must a priori understand or hold a context as to what something is, before one can study what ‘it’ does. The error of intolerance resides in the assumption that in order to study a phenomenon, we must assume that its cause is ‘real’ first. When electromagnetic theory was posed, they conceived of the context of a ‘field’ as real (= IS), before conducting EMF experimentation. However not all science can be introduced in this manner. In a true Does/Is, a researcher does not conceive of the context of the cause as real in advance of study. This frees up scientists to study challenging phenomena without having to declare it or its context to be ‘real’ first. Is/Does is a problem of induction – as it forces us to to a highly constrained form of science called sciebam, which seeks to state a hypothesis as the first step of the scientific method. A corollary of this idea involves the condition when the ‘does’ involves some sort of prejudice or will on the part of the subject being studied. Does becomes more difficult to study in such instance, however this does not remove from us the responsibility to conduct such study.
Jackery – accusing a person of being a quack simply because they sell a treatment which is not billed through a big pharmaceutical chain or authorized healthcare plan channel, or is based upon a supplement or HPUS formulation.
JAQing (Just Asking Questions) – a form of rhetorical arguing wherein a person will game the discussion by:
1. Feigning lack of understanding (often to later belie this by showing they did understand all along),
2. Failing to address the critical path argument or obviating its context from being applied to the discussion,
3. Beginning discussion by means of condemning conclusions posed in the form of a question, and/or
4. Continuous searching for any possible interpretive minor flaw in an argument or data set, which can be spun as a ‘debunking’.
JAQing constitutes a warning flag of agency and dishonesty in the person who engages by means of it.
Journalistic Hyperbole, The Principle of – when a journalist cites that an issue is the ‘most’, ‘worst’, ‘deadliest’, ‘open-shut’ or scientifically settled, you can safely discern that the journalist fears that the issue might not even be real and/or is attempting to escalate the language of the argument to intimidate opponents. Hyperbole betrays self doubt or a lack of real evidence.
Kafka Trap – named for the works of novelist Franz Kafka, this defines a circumstance involving bizarre or surrealistic predicaments used to enforce socio-bureaucratic power. A circumstance where participants in a social discourse are coerced to either agree with a particular political view, or be cast into a pre-established set of bucket condemnations based upon familiar and unfair stereotypes. The trap usually leads with an implicit threat of condemnation, which then provides a fixed set of categorizations based upon the conversant’s response to that threat. The conversant’s disagreement with the final categorization is simply ex post facto confirmation that the categorization was indeed correct.
Keystone Lie – a base or critical fabrication upon which an entire stack of lies or conspiracy is based. The lie which is so pivotal to an entire narrative that detecting its falsehood hints that every other assumption or ‘fact’ associated with it, is also a lie.
Kilkenny’s Law – final claims to expertise and evidence may be tendered inside established trade, transactional, technical and diagnostic disciplines. Therefore:
I. A conclusive claim to evidence inside a subject bearing a sufficiently unknown or risk-bearing horizon, is indistinguishable from an appeal to authority, and
II. Corber’s Burden: A sufficiently large or comprehensive set of claims to conclusive evidence in denial, is indistinguishable from an appeal to authority.
III. If you have brought me evidence based claims in the past which turned out to be premature and harmful/wrong, I will refuse to recognize your successive claims to be evidence based.
King of the Shill – resting idly on outdated only partly predictive studies while asking everyone else with any alternative idea to bring iron clad proof.
Kriging Leap – when an argument is touted as being supported by underpinning science or precision, when the contended conclusion is not in reality supported by or connected to the underpinning science or precision. Jumping from theoretical science, glossing over intermediate principles, and directly to immediate application, in order to falsely bolster a desired position.
Laches Scheme – any sequential process, logical argument or legal circumstance in which a position is rendered null because it was not pursued in time – ironically however, neither could it have validly been pursued in time to begin with. A laches argument is one involving an unreasonable delay in making an assertion or claim, such as asserting a right, claiming a privilege, or making an application for redress. The scheme arises in the circumstance by which the subject claim could also not have been technically pursued during the period in which such claim was supposed to have been made. A form of Catch-22 common in corrupt elections or funding/assistance programs.
The Law of Non-Contradiction – a formal fallacy of logical calculus failure in which two contradictory statements cannot possibly be true at the same time while in the same context and relationship.
The Law of Paradox – a paradox is simply a falsehood begging to be exposed.
Layogenic – looks or sounds great when examined from a distance or described in concept, but reveals to be a horrid mess when inspected up close or to any kind of level of detail.
Leveraged Duality (Mutual Coercion) – a condition wherein two people know each others’ less flattering secrets or history of error to such an extent that each cites as authority, or praises the other publicly in order to maintain the good graces of the relationship and not spill the beans as to their mutual knowledge of their sins.
The Logical Truth of Extraordinary Evidence – any claim which exposes a stakeholder to risk, ignorance or loss of value – regardless of how ordinary, virtuous or correct – demands extraordinary evidence. The correct version of Carl Sagan’s ‘extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence’.
Logical versus Semantic Truth – a logical truth is a statement which is true, and remains true under all reinterpretations of its components or in all contexts aside from simply that of its apperception and crafting. A semantic truth is only true in certain given circumstances.
The Luxury of Obtuseness – one defining aspect of the luxury of obtuseness is the state wherein an obtuse person mistakes their opponent’s irritation with a discussion as constituting cognitive dissonance on their part.
Machiavelli Solution – a three stage ‘solution’, implemented through an often unseen or unappreciated agency’s manipulation of a population. This is what fake and celebrity skeptics are doing to us today – they work to foment conflict between the public and science/scientists – in order to exploit the self-sublation into their own power and enforcement of their own religion, sol-nihilism. There are three steps to this:
1. Hegelian Dialectic – three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction; an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis; and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis. In more simplistic terms, one can consider it thus: proposition → anti-proposition → solution.
However, the proposition and anti-proposition become stuck in a thing called self-sublation. A state in which both extremes have been falsified, however no one can give either extreme up, because of the perceived risk of a victory by the other side:
2. Self-Sublation (autoaufheben) – Hegelian principle of a dialectic which is stuck in stasis through an idea both canceling and sustaining itself at the same time. A doubled meaning: it means both to cancel (or negate) and to preserve at the same time.
The proposition/anti-proposition tension now stuck as its own perpetual argument, this gives rise to the surreptitiously played:
3. Machiavelli Solution – a third party creates and/or exploits the self-sublation condition of a Hegelian dialectic bifurcation at play, in order to sustain a conflict between two opposing ideas or groups, and eventually exploit those two groups’ losses into its own gain in power.
Magician’s Sleeve – the critical twist in logical calculus, equivocation, soundness, or context/salience, which allows one ostensible conclusion to be surreptitiously converted into a differing, more desirable conclusion on the part of the magician. A formal fallacy in logical calculus which is hidden inside the complexity of the argument context itself.
Manager’s Error – from Nassim Taleb’s tome Fooled by Randomness (2001). The principle of forcing an argument into an artificial binary or bifurcated outcome set, examining only that which is a priori deemed to be the more probable or simple outcome, and not that choice which can serve to produce the largest net effect or ‘payoff’. Only researching the most likely, framework compliant or simple alternative, will only serve to confirm what we already know, and bears a much lower payoff in terms of information which might be garnered through a black swan, less likely or ‘complex’ alternative turning out to bear any form of credence or final veracity.
Manipulative Rational Ignorance – a form of rhetoric wherein an arguer contends rational ignorance applies inside an argument, or the ignoring of a pathway of science because the cost or effort entailed is too high versus the results or lack thereof to be obtained from the effort. When in fact the arguer in reality fears the cost or penalty which would be incurred should the outcome of the scientific effort result in an observation or conclusion which he fears.
Masquerade of the Middle – an arguer who cites that there are persons on one side of an argument encouraging him to be more fervent in his position/substantiation, and on the other side those who contend he is an idiot or completely wrong. Then employing this as a false indicator that he/she is practicing some kind of objective neutrality or middle ground. A fake sleuth will employ this in almost every publicly visible scenario. Alternately, any form of desperate search for a proponent to the more extreme than one’s self, in order to foist the appearance of neutrality or reasonableness.
McLuhan’s Axiom – “Only small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by the public’s incredulity.” A quip attributed to philosopher on media theory, Herbert Marshall McLuhan.
Medical Proxy Abuse – two species of abuse in terms of human rights, child, or caretaker, in which a caregiver is pathologically negligent in their duties towards their patient or care recipient.
Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (MSBP) – a form of child or care-recipient abuse. It is an intentional fabrication or physical production of illness in another, usually children by mothers, to assume a role of being sick by proxy on the part of the one in their care.
Sarscov Syndrome by Proxy (SSBP) – a form of pathological human rights abuse. A form of hero syndrome or megalomania expressed through establishing exclusivity or intentional withholding of access to a physiological necessity or treatment. This is conducted with the intent of only administering such a necessity, cure, or treatment of related symptoms under the most dire, sensational, attention-garnering, or expensive conditions.
Meet God Argument/Doubtcasting – a form of rhetorical critique in which a person casts inexpert doubt upon (while adding no value) or quibbles with each assumption in their opponent’s argument, reducing it continually to the point of winnowing it down to essential challenges such as ‘prove energy exists’, or ‘prove there is such a thing as entropy’, or ‘prove that the universe is quantum’, etc. A circumstance in which the arguer employs Herculean burdens of proof or opportunistic-as-is-favorable deep or wide questioning with their conversant, and is not interested in anything other than dispute or appearing to win an argument.
The Mendoza Line – is an expression which originates from in baseball in the United States, derived from the name of shortstop Mario Mendoza, whose poor .200 batting average is taken to define the threshold standard of incompetent performance. When a skeptic or someone who purports to possess skill at deriving the most likely answer or the truth, is so bad at those purported skills that they are regarded as performing ‘Below the Mendoza Line’ in accuracy or competence. Alternately applying the same principle to claimed skills in understanding, prediction, economic forecasts, business success, relationships, science, etc.
mésa éxo Prose or Communication – (from Greek: μέσα έξω; mésa éxo – ‘inside out’) – when one employs sophisticated style in communication as a substitution for competence. Communication is achieved by means of two elements: style and logical delivery. Mésa éxo prose is that writing or speech which is delivered in a compliant and user friendly style (a grammar, flow, idiom, and sentence structure with which the reader will most likely be familiar and view as culturally sophisticated), however is convoluted in terms of its inference, logical structure, integrity or ability to deliver actual intelligence. Just because its style may appear elite or comfortable does not mean that a piece of communication has been skillfully delivered. A common deception applied in journalism. See also ‘Bridgman Point’.
Methodical Deescalation – employing abductive inference in lieu of inductive inference when inductive inference could have, and under the scientific method should have, been employed. In similar fashion employing inductive inference in lieu of deductive inference when deductive inference could have, and under the scientific method should have, been employed.
All things being equal, the latter is superior to the midmost, which is superior to the former:
- Conformance of panduction (while a type/mode of inference this is not actually a type of reasoning)
- Convergence of abductions
- Consilience of inductions
- Consensus of deductions
One of the hallmarks of skepticism is grasping the distinction between a ‘consilience of inductions’ and a ‘convergence of deductions’. All things being equal, a convergence of deductions is superior to a consilience of inductions. When science employs a consilience of inductions, when a convergence of deductions was available, yet was not pursued – then we have an ethical dilemma called Methodical Deescalation.
Methodical Doubt – doubt employed as a skulptur mechanism, to slice away disliked observations until one is left with the data set they favored before coming to an argument. The first is the questionable method of denying that something exists or is true simply because it defies a certain a priori stacked provisional knowledge. This is nothing but a belief expressed in the negative, packaged in such a fashion as to exploit the knowledge that claims to denial are afforded immediate acceptance over claims to the affirmative. This is a religious game of manipulating the process of knowledge development into a whipsaw effect supporting a given conclusion set
MiHoDeAL Fallacy – the invalid made or implied claim to knowledge that all case examples of a subject domain are Misidentifications, Hoaxes, Delusions, Anecdotes, Lies (MiHoDeAL). When evidence involves falsification observations, a countering MiHoDeAL claim cannot be asserted by an opponent without a sufficiently robust array of predictive evidence. A MiHoDeAL claim most often involves a false Appeal to Skepticism, and more specifically most often constitutes a Truzzi Fallacy.
Mission Directed Blindness – when on believes from being told, that they serve a greater cause, or that some necessary actions must be taken to avoid a specific disaster. Usually this renders the participant unable to handle evidence adeptly under Ockham’s Razor, once adopted.
Moral Recourse – an appeal to morality wherein a faking arguer who actually bears no interest in the science behind an issue, is outflanked, and actual science is no longer on his side. He will shift to moral arguments and attempt to make his opponents appear to be bad or immoral for their stance. This is the shift we see underway now in vaccine science for instance, now that early immune activation and injected aluminum are linked in numerous studies to autism, the argument is no longer scientific, rather a moral appeal.
Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy – named after Motte-and-Bailey Castle, this informal fallacy is a tactic of argument wherein the arguer conflates two forms of contention which are similar in concept or semantics, but differ in overall acceptability. One concept will be reasonable-sounding and easy to defend, while the other similar one will bear much more controversy. The former being a costume (often virtuous) the arguer is wearing, while the latter constituting the actual objective of malicious intent on the part of a deceptive arguer. When attacked, the arguer will contend that his opponent opposes the more reasonable version of his position, and drop discussion of the less reasonable one.
Multiplicity Fallacy – the presumption that adding more skeptics to an argument or to support a specific conclusion increases the believability or accuracy of that argument or position. Several excuses are less believable than one. Several skeptics are less believable than one.
Münchhausen Axiomatic Argument – argument which rests on accepted precepts, or tenders the appearance of doing so through Kriging leap (i.e. we reach some bedrock assumption or certainty).
Münchhausen Circular Argument – argument in which theory and proof wind up supporting each other through logical association (i.e. we arrive back logically where we started).
Münchhausen Regressive Argument – argument in which each proof requires underpinning by a further proof, possibly even a replication of itself, ad infinitum (i.e. we just keep requiring proofs, presumably forever).
Must-Explain Observation – (in contrast with ‘it would be nice if it could explain’) a specific observation inside a domain of science which cannot be brushed off as anecdote and is critical path to the argument being evaluated. In this circumstance a scientific argument or theory must explain the observation, or have its credibility be eroded. Most theoretical explanations of observed phenomena are linear inductive in their inferential strength. Must-explain observations provide a deductive lever for strong theories to emerge as superior from the field of linear inductive theories. Never accept a theory which can only explain convenient observations. You have no claim to science, if you cannot explain even a basic must-explain observation.
Myth of Certainty/Myth of Proof – based upon the wisdom elicited by the Leon Wieseltier quote ‘No great deed private or public has ever been undertaken in a bliss of certainty’.
Narrative Ninny – a simpleton who believes that automatically adhering to what they have heard is the ‘official truth’, exhibits a superior level of erudition on their part, along with an exclusive monopoly in scientific reason. A fool who is conditioned to be automatically vulnerable to authoritative deception or an official narrative, who habitually allies with any apparent position of power, and is willing to incrementally prevaricate because the virtue of their cause more than makes up for their lie in support of it. A repetitive process passed from Narrative Ninny to Narrative Ninny, through which a stack of such (permissible) lies transforms into The Narrative. The opposite of a conspiracy theorist, save for their holding a reality shaped by zero research or logic in support their ‘position’.
The Necessary Alternative – an alternative which has become necessary for study under Ockham’s Razor because it is one of a finite, constrained and very small set of alternative ideas intrinsically available to provide explanatory causality or criticality inside a domain of sufficient unknown. This alternative does not necessarily require inductive development, nor proof and can still serve as a placeholder construct, even under a condition of pseudo-theory. In order to mandate its introduction, all that is necessary is a reduction pathway in which mechanism can be developed as a core facet of a viable and testable hypothesis based upon its tenets.
negare attentio Effect – the unconscious habituation of a person seeking publicity or attention in which they will gravitate more and more to stances of denial, skepticism and doubting inside issues of debate, as their principal method of communication or public contention. This condition is subconsciously reinforced because they are rewarded with immediate greater credence when tendering a position of doubt, find the effort or scripted method of arguing easier, enjoy shaming and demeaning people not similar to their own perception of self or presume that counter-claims don’t require any evidence, work or research.
Negative Composition Proof – disproof of tenets inside an opponent’s idea or of the idea itself stands as proof of my own idea or argument.
Nelsonian Knowledge – A precise and exhaustive knowledge, about that which one claims is not worth examining. No expertise is so profound in its depth as that expertise prerequisite in establishing what not to know. Such Nelsonian knowledge takes three forms:
1. a meticulous attentiveness to and absence of, that which one should ‘not know’,
2. an inferential method of avoiding such knowledge, and finally as well,
3. that misleading knowledge or activity which is used as a substitute in place of actual knowledge (organic untruth or disinformation).
The former (#1) is taken to actually be known on the part of a poseur. It is dishonest for a man deliberately to shut his eyes to principles/intelligence which he would prefer not to know. If he does so, he is taken to have actual knowledge of the facts to which he shut his eyes. Such knowledge has been described as ‘Nelsonian knowledge’, meaning knowledge which is attributed to a person as a consequence of his ‘willful blindness’ or (as American legal analysts describe it) ‘contrived ignorance’.
Neti’s Razor – the principle which serves to cut nihilism as a form of belief, distinct from all other forms of atheism as either philosophy or belief. From the Sanskrit idiom, Neti Neti (not this, not that): one cannot produce evidence from that which at a point did or will not exist, to also demonstrate that nothing aside from that entity therefore exists.
Newman’s Doctrine – a resilience on the part of one’s victim in no way serves to exonerate the immorality of one’s crime. The resulting benefits in terms of wisdom, resilience and strength on the part of the victim, in no way serves to justify the decision to enact a harm upon that victim. What makes you stronger is not therefore forgiven in its attempt to kill you. (See Bastiat Fallacy).
Nocebo – something which is inert or not harmful is regarded by its victim to be harmful, and therefore causes harm.
Nocebo Appeal – a nocebo claim which is made in absence of any data, observation or evidence.
Noitcif – fiction is the act of weaving a series of lies to arrive at a truth. Noitcif is the act of weaving a series of facts to arrive at a lie.
non rectum agitur Fallacy – a purposeful abrogation of the scientific method through corrupted method sequence or the framing and asking of the wrong, ill prepared, unit biased or invalid question, conducted as a pretense of executing the scientific method on the part of a biased participant. Applying a step of the scientific method, out of order – so as to artificially force a conclusion, such as providing ‘peer review’ on sponsored constructs and observations, rather than studies and claims, in an effort to kill research into those constructs and observations.
Non-Merchandising Defense Error – claiming correctness on your part or incorrectness on another party’s part because merchandising or product sales have been conducted in the name of the opposing idea. Anything can be merchandised, that does not de-legitimize the underlying issue involved – but fraud is a tort, even if you do not merchandise it.
Normalcy Bias – the refusal to plan for, consider, or react to, a dramatic exception event or idea which has never happened or been considered before.
Normative Convergence Paradox – the observation or reality inside of systems theory and modeling that, even in the case wherein all optimal constraints, arrivals, feedback and functions inside a system are modeled to perfect accuracy – a decision or optimal outcome may not necessarily be producible.
Not a Logical Truth – It is not that this type of statement is false. The basis of this type of assertion may even reside in scientific validity, or may be only categorically true – i.e. only true if given a specific set of circumstances. However the statement is not a logical truth – a truth of syllogism which is comprehensive, unqualified and unequivocal. Logical truth is the state of syllogism which a deceitful person is wishing for you to infer when they state a categorical truth, yet do not specify its conditions. It is a means of lying through stating something which is only conditionally accurate – hoping that their victim will accept the statement as one which addresses all circumstance.
nulla infantis – a pseudo-argument, sometimes cleverly disguised or hidden inside pleonasm, which basically is the equivalent of saying ‘nuh-uhhh’… Latin for child’s ‘no’. Usually followed by an appeal to have the opponent shut-up or be silenced in some manner.
Numptured/Numptant/Numpty – a person who is educated or intelligent enough to execute a method, memorize a list of key phrases/retorts or understand some scientific reasoning, yet is gullible or lacking in circumspection to where they are unable to understand the applicable deeper meaning/science, the harm they cause nor their role in being manipulated inside propaganda. A numptant, or ‘numpty’ can be discerned through the number of subjects about which they like to argue. This indicating a clear preference not for any compassion or concern regarding any particular subject; rather the superior nature of their own thinking, argument, adherence to rationality and compliance inside any topic in which they can demonstrate such. Science, or the pretense thereof, is a handy shield behind which to exercise such a neurosis.
Objection sans Contexte – when an objection is raised to argue in opposition, which demonstrates a lack of salient understanding of the principle being argued against.
Observation vs Claim Blurring – the false practice of calling an observation or data set, a ‘claim’ on the observers’ part. This in an effort to subjugate such observations into the category of constituting scientific claims which therefore must be now ‘proved’ or dismissed (the real goal: see Transactional Occam’s Razor Fallacy). In fact an observation is simply that, a piece of evidence or a cataloged fact. Its false dismissal under the pretense of being deemed a ‘claim’ is a practice of deception and pseudoscience.
Observational Occam’s Razor Fallacy (Exclusion Bias) – through insisting that observations and data be falsely addressed as ‘claims’ needing immediate explanation, and through rejecting such a ‘claim’ (observation) based upon the idea that it introduces plurality (it is not simple), one effectively ensures that no observations will ever be recognized which serve to frame and reduce a competing alternative. One will in effect perpetually prove only what they have assumed as true, regardless of the idea’s inherent risk. No competing idea can ever be formulated because outlier data and observations are continuously discarded immediately, one at a time by means of being deemed ‘extraordinary claims’.
Obtollence – (The Principle of Ethical Skepticism) – Latin ob – against, plus tollens – denial. Fake skeptics love to ply their wares in proving an absence (Hempel’s Paradox) – applying science to deny that things exist (prove the null, or prove absence); when such activity is unethical, impossible or even unnecessary. They seek to remove any question of modus indifferens (the neutrality of skepticism) at all costs. An ethical researcher avoids any form of Hempel’s Paradox – whereas a fake researcher dwells in it most of the time.
Objective and Subjective Domain Error – holding a domain argument (such as God or monism) as consensus, becomes an oppressive action called an Einfach Mechanism. Promoting a domain idea, such as God or Material Monism into the place of a testable or objective hypothesis – and thereafter, treating it as if it was an actual hypothesis. Most scientists do not take much philosophy, so they fall vulnerable to this mind trick. The least scientific thing one can do, is to believe the null hypothesis. This gets even worse, if the null hypothesis is not even a true hypothesis – and rather is a subjective domain of ideas.
Occam’s Razor – all things being equal, that which is easy for most to understand, and as well conforms with an a priori stack of easy-to-understands, along with what I believe most scientists think, tends to obviate the need for any scientific investigation. A false logical construct invented by SSkepticism to replace and change the efficacy of Ockham’s Razor, the latter employed as a viable principle in scientific logic. Occam’s Razor was a twist off the older Ockham’s Razor, which was slight and almost undetectable, but can be used to reverse the applicability of the more valid thought discipline inside of Ockham’s Razor. “All things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one” is a logical fallacy; constituting a completely different and antithetical approach than that of Ockham’s Razor. Occam’s Razor can only result in conformance based explanations, regardless of their scientific validity.
Occam’s Razor Fallacy – abuse of Ockham’s Razor (and misspelling) in order to to enact a process of sciencey-looking ignorance and to impose a favored idea. All things being equal, that which is easy for most to understand, and as well conforms with an a priori stack of easy-to-understands, along with what I believe most scientists think, tends to obviate the need for any scientific investigation. Can exist in four forms, transactional, existential, observational and utility blindness.
Transactional Occam’s Razor Fallacy (Appeal to Ignorance) – the false contention that a challenging construct, observation or paradigm must immediately be ‘explained.’ Sidestepping of the data aggregation, question development, intelligence and testing/replication steps of the scientific method and forcing a skip right to its artificially conclusive end (final peer review by ‘Occam’s Razor’).
Existential Occam’s Razor Fallacy (Appeal to Authority) – the false contention that the simplest or most probable explanation tends to be the scientifically correct one. Suffers from the weakness that myriad and complex underpinning assumptions, based upon scant predictive/suggestive study, provisional knowledge or Popper insufficient science, result in the condition of tendering the appearance of ‘simplicity.’
Observational Occam’s Razor Fallacy (Exclusion Bias) – through insisting that observations and data be falsely addressed as ‘claims’ needing immediate explanation, and through rejecting such a ‘claim’ (observation) based upon the idea that it introduces plurality (it is not simple), one effectively ensures that no observations will ever be recognized which serve to frame and reduce a competing alternative. One will in effect perpetually prove only what they have assumed as true, regardless of the idea’s inherent risk. No competing idea can ever be formulated because outlier data and observations are continuously discarded immediately, one at a time by means of being deemed ‘extraordinary claims’.
Utility Blindness – when simplicity or parsimony are incorrectly applied as excuse to resist the development of a new scientific explanatory model, data or challenging observation set, when indeed the participant refuses to consider or examine the explanatory utility of any similar new model under consideration.
Facile – appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial. Easily earned, arrived at or won – derived without the requisite rigor or effort. Something easy to understand, which is compatible with a predicate or associated stack of also easy-to-understands.
Ockham’s Inversion – the condition when the ‘rational or simple explanation’ requires so many risky, stacked or outlandish assumptions in order to make it viable, that is has become even more outlandish than the complex explanation it was originally posed against and was supposed to surpass in likelihood. Similarly, a condition wherein the proposed ‘more likely or simple’ alternative is just as outlandish in reality as is the originally considered one.
Omega Hypothesis (HΩ) – the argument which is foisted to end all argument, period. A conclusion promoted under such an insistent guise of virtue or importance, that protecting it has become imperative over even the integrity of science itself. An invalid null hypothesis or a preferred idea inside a social epistemology. A hypothesis which is defined to end deliberation without due scientific rigor, alternative study consensus or is afforded unmerited protection or assignment as the null. The surreptitiously held and promoted idea or the hypothesis protected by an Inverse Negation Fallacy. Often one which is promoted as true by default, with the knowledge in mind that falsification will be very hard or next to impossible to achieve.
1. The (Wonka) Golden Ticket – Have we ever really tested the predictive strength of this idea standalone, or evaluated its antithetical ideas for falsification? Does an argument proponent constantly insist on a ‘burden of proof’ upon any contrasting idea, a burden that they never attained for their argument in the first place? An answer they fallaciously imply is the scientific null hypothesis; ‘true’ until proved otherwise?
Einfach Mechanism – an idea which is not yet mature under the tests of valid hypothesis, yet is installed as the null hypothesis or best explanation regardless. An explanation, theory or idea which sounds scientific, yet resolves a contention through bypassing the scientific method, then moreover is installed as truth thereafter solely by means of pluralistic ignorance around the idea itself. Pseudo-theory which is not fully tested at its inception, nor is ever held to account thereafter. An idea which is not vetted by the rigor of falsification, predictive consilience nor mathematical derivation, rather is simply considered such a strong, or Occam’s Razor (sic) stemming-from-simplicity idea that the issue is closed as finished science or philosophy from its proposition and acceptance onward. A pseudo-theory of false hypothesis which is granted status as the default null hypothesis or as posing the ‘best explanation’, without having to pass the rigors with which its competing alternatives are burdened. The Einfach mechanism is often accompanied by social rejection of competing and necessary alternative hypotheses, which are forbidden study. Moreover, the Einfach hypothesis must be regarded by the scientific community as ‘true’ until proved otherwise. An einfach mechanism may or may not be existentially true.
2. Cheater’s Hypothesis – Does the hypothesis or argument couch a number of imprecise terms or predicate concepts? Is it mentioned often by journalists or other people wishing to appear impartial and comprehensive? Is the argument easily falsified through a few minutes of research, yet seems to be mentioned in every subject setting anyway?
Imposterlösung Mechanism – the cheater’s answer. A disproved, incoherent or ridiculous contention, or one which fails the tests to qualify as a real hypothesis, which is assumed as a potential hypothesis anyway simply because it sounds good or is packaged for public consumption. These alternatives pass muster with the general public, but are easily falsified after mere minutes of real research. Employing the trick of pretending that an argument domain which does not bear coherency nor soundness – somehow (in violation of science and logic) falsely merits assignment as a ‘hypothesis’. Despite this, most people hold them in mind simply because of their repetition. This fake hypothesis circumstance is common inside an argument which is unduly influenced by agency. They are often padded into skeptical analyses, to feign an attempt at appearing to be comprehensive, balanced, or ‘considering all the alternatives’.
Ad hoc/Pseudo-Theory – can’t be fully falsified nor studied, and can probably never be addressed or can be proposed in almost any circumstance of mystery. They fail in regard to the six tests of what constitutes a real hypothesis. Yet they persist anyway. These ideas will be thrown out for decades. They can always be thrown out. They will always be thrown out.
3. Omega Hypothesis (HΩ) – Is the idea so important and virtuous, that it now stands more important that the methods of science, or science itself. Does the idea leave a trail of dead competent professional bodies behind it?
Höchste Mechanism – when a position or practice, purported to be of scientific basis, is elevated to such importance or virtue that removing the rights of professionals and citizens to dissent, speak, organize or disagree (among other rights) is justified in order to protect the position or the practice inside society.
Constructive Ignorance (Lemming Weisheit or Lemming Doctrine) – a process related to the Lindy Effect and pluralistic ignorance, wherein discipline researchers are rewarded for being productive rather than right, for building ever upward instead of checking the foundations of their research, for promoting doctrine rather than challenging it. These incentives allow weak confirming studies to to be published and untested ideas to proliferate as truth. And once enough critical mass has been achieved, they create a collective perception of strength or consensus.
4. Embargo Hypothesis (Hξ) – was the science terminated years ago, in the midst of large-impact questions of a critical nature which still remain unanswered? Is such research now considered ‘anti-science’ or ‘pseudoscience’?
Entscheiden Mechanism – the pseudoscientific or tyrannical approach of, when faced with epistemology which is heading in an undesired direction, artificially declaring under a condition of praedicate evidentia, the science as ‘settled’.
Poison Pill Hypothesis – the instance wherein sskeptics or agency work hard to promote lob & slam condemnation of particular ideas. A construct obsession target used to distract or attract attack-minded skeptics into a contrathetic impasse or argument. The reason this is done is not the confusion or clarity it provides, rather the disincentive which patrolling skeptics place on the shoulders of the genuine skilled researcher. These forbidden alternatives (often ‘paranormal’ or ‘pseudoscience’ or ‘conspiracy theory’ buckets) may be ridiculous or indeed ad hoc themselves – but the reason they are raised is to act as a warning to talented researchers that ‘you might be tagged as supporting one of these crazy ideas’ if you step out of line and do not visibly support the Omega Hypothesis. A great example is the skeptic community tagging of anyone who considers the idea that the Khufu pyramid at Giza might have not been built by King Khufu in 2450 bce, as therefore now supporting conspiracy theories or aliens as the builders – moreover, their being racist against Arabs who now are the genetic group which occupies modern Egypt.
5. Evidence Sculpting – has more evidence been culled from the field of consideration for this idea, than has been retained? Has the evidence been sculpted to fit the idea, rather than the converse?
Skulptur Mechanism – the pseudoscientific method of treating evidence as a work of sculpture. Methodical inverse negation techniques employed to dismiss data, block research, obfuscate science and constrain ideas such that what remains is the conclusion one sought in the first place. A common tactic of those who boast of all their thoughts being ‘evidence based’. The tendency to view a logical razor as a device which is employed to ‘slice off’ unwanted data (evidence sculpting tool), rather than as a cutting tool (pharmacist’s cutting and partitioning razor) which divides philosophically valid and relevant constructs from their converse.
Also, the instance common in media wherein so-called ‘fact-based’ media sites tell 100% truth about 50% the relevant story. This is the same as issuing 50% misinformation or disinformation.
6. Lindy-Ignorance Vortex – do those who enforce or imply a conforming idea or view, seem to possess a deep emotional investment in ensuring that no broach of subject is allowed regarding any thoughts or research around an opposing idea or specific ideas or avenues of research they disfavor? Do they easily and habitually imply that their favored conclusions are the prevailing opinion of scientists? Is there an urgency to reach or sustain this conclusion by means of short-cut words like ‘evidence’ and ‘fact’? If such disfavored ideas are considered for research or are broached, then extreme disdain, social and media derision are called for?
Verdrängung Mechanism – the level of control and idea displacement achieved through skillful employment of the duality between pluralistic ignorance and the Lindy Effect. The longer a control-minded group can sustain an Omega Hypothesis perception by means of the tactics and power protocols of proactive pluralistic ignorance, the greater future acceptability and lifespan that idea will possess. As well, the harder it will to be dethrone as an accepted norm or perception as a ‘proved’ null hypothesis.
Omega Hypothesis Principle of Causatum – if you approach a subject with flawed assumptions, everything will appear to be a mystery from that point on. The principle citing that, as the number of enforced Omega Hypotheses increases inside a discipline or subject, so will the number of quandaries, mysteries, paradoxes and conundrums – and in arithmetic proportion. By the principle of the contrathetic impasse, such entities of conflict and unresolvability relate in direct proportion to bad underlying assumptions in force.
Omnifinity – any argument which ascribes to a theoretical god, such powers, knowledge and capability such that the god in question is simultaneously able to do anything, and at the same time evade any level of comprehension on our part. This type of god is simply a placeholder argument (the ultimate special pleading) which is a parallel argument to the Infinity of the Gaps argument below. These are twin arguments, which contrary to superficial appearances, are the same exact argument. Neither one constitutes science.
omnis doctrina – when an authority insists that, in order to be a member or adherent to a club, citizenship, religion or group, one must believe all the tenets of the charter or mantra of that group without question or dissent. Ideas such as ‘you can’t just throw out parts of the Bible which you don’t like, and keep the rest,’ or ‘you cannot pick and choose the science you like and do not like’ or ‘you cannot be an American and toss out the 4th Amendment’. An appeal to authority, which can slip by and sound more reasonable because it is offered in a rhetorical reverse fashion of posing.
Ontological Projection Error – when an argument is made that a moral choice of one’s own can reliably extrapolate to be the same choice made by a general population holding to the same ontology of the chooser. Because a contending atheist is moral, all other nihilists, atheists and persons under a culture teaching such ideas, will then choose to be moral as well.
Open-Ended Fallacy – an argument, contention, or objective which stipulates attainment of something which is either undefined, difficult to measure, involves changing goals, is impossible to attain, or would require so much investment of resources that the involved costs are not worth the attainment benefits. A method of arguing/oppression which is used to enslave an opponent under an unresolvable standard or burden.
Organic Untruth (verum mendacium) – a constructive form of argument which exploits concealed ambiguity or altered premise as the core of its foundational structure. A statement which is true at face value, but was not true or was of unknown verity under the time frame or original basis, soundness, domain or context under discussion.
Orthogonality/Orthogonal Argument – a principle regarding an assertion of fact or syllogism, wherein it is not necessarily mutually exclusive to other assertion or arguments being made inside its topic. An object might be hot or cold, but it can also be red or green at the same time. Beware of those who spin orthogonal arguments as being part of a mutually exclusive set of linear arguments, or even as violating a bifurcation they wish to enforce. This stands as an indication that they really do not understand the argument at hand.
Outference – a critical (not rhetorical) argument which bases its inference or conclusions upon cultivated ignorance and the resulting lack of information, rather than the presence of sound information. More than simply an appeal to ignorance, this ‘lack’ of information is specifically engineered to produce specious conclusion in the first place. This type of argument gets stronger and stronger the less and less critical information one holds. This is a warning flag of agenda or political shenanigans at play.
Overshooting the Question – to subconsciously make the mistake of responding to a simple question with a more complex answer than was asked or required – an indicator of agency and/or Nelsonian Knowledge. The act of subconsciously answering a question which was not actually asked, indicating a fear or a degree of defensiveness which betrays agency, bias, or culpability.
Oversimplification (Pseudo Reduction) – instead of reducing an argument so that its contributing elements can be tested, a pretend skeptic will oversimplify the argument as a pretense of reduction. A form of false reduction which only serves to reduce the possible outcomes, and not actually deconstruct an argument into its logical critical path. Rather than examining all contributing elements of cause to effect, soundness or observation, the oversimplifier pares off those influences, constraints, objectives, and factors which serve to get in the way of their agency or desired conclusion. Thereafter employing ‘Occam’s Razor’ simplicity as an apologetic. ‘The dose makes the poison’, or ‘non-ionizing radiation can’t cause cancer’ are examples of pseudo-reduction. The arguer appears to be stepping down to a level of cause and effect inference, however has excluded so many factors that – there can only be one a priori inference drawn from the remaining set of influence.
Oversteering – when a proponent cites a trailing statistic to provide underpinning justification for proactive intervention to adjust independent influences input to a system. Desiring instantaneous appearance of unanimity among all statistics comprised by a system, both errant in the meaning of the statistics themselves as well as the validity of statistical unanimity entailing superior utility.
Palter/Paltering – lying through facts. Paltering is the deceptive use of truthful statements to convey a misleading impression or inference. It is the devious art of lying by telling unqualified truths. It usually involves equivocation and/or prevarication as the basis of its management of constraint, context or ignoratio elenchi – however often can also come in the form of a semantic truth as opposed to a logical one.
Panaganda – declaring the one or scarce exception to dominant propaganda, because it dissents or is neutral, to therefore be propaganda itself. “The true objective of propaganda is neither to convince nor even persuade. But to produce a uniform pattern of public utterances in which the first trace of unorthodox thought reveals itself as a jarring dissonance.” ~Leonard Schapiro
Panduction – an invalid form of inference which is spun in the form of pseudo-deductive study. Inference which seeks to falsify in one fell swoop ‘everything but what my club believes’ as constituting one group of bad people, who all believe the same wrong and correlated things – this is the warning flag of panductive pseudo-theory. No follow up series studies nor replication methodology can be derived from this type of ‘study’, which in essence serves to make it pseudo-science. This is a common ‘study’ format which is conducted by social skeptics masquerading as scientists, to pan people and subjects they dislike. There are three general types of Panduction. In its essence, panduction is any form of inference used to pan an entire array of theories, constructs, ideas and beliefs (save for one favored and often hidden one), by means of the following technique groupings:
- Extrapolate and Bundle from Unsound Premise
- Impugn through Invalid Syllogism
- Mischaracterize though False Observation
The Paradox of Virtue – a decision condition wherein uncertainty or unknowns force one risk (its mitigation most often associated with social virtue) to be served at the expense of all other risks, both known and unknown. The known risk-mitigation is promoted until a Tau Point inflection is reached and decision makers realize that another risk is now showing to have been greater, and reveals our actions to have been a mistake. Usually the cost of the under-served risk is many times higher than the virtue-served risk would have cost if left alone to begin with. There is no ‘good’, there is only evil and not-evil. Under a Paradox of Virtue, those who try to enforce virtuous good, fail for having boasted unreasonable claims of God-level knowledge or power on their part. They end up causing more harm, than good.
Paralogism – is a form of linear reasoning, which might appear to be coherent inside a stand alone or twisted context, however is based upon false underpinnings in the first place, which may or may not be fully recognized.
Parsimony Regarding Oppression – we must remember that the opposite of conspiracy theory, is an even worse mistake called ‘oppression’. Oppression makes the very same mistakes in inference as does the conspiracy theorist – except in the case of oppression, usually a lot of people are harmed as a result.
pavor mensura – an effect of apophenia wherein, upon analyzing a system or looking at a set of analytics or an issue for the very fist time, observers will often mistakenly perceive that a disaster is in the making. The erroneous tendency to perceive that the first statistical measures of a disease, natural system, dynamic process or social trend – can be reliably extrapolated to predict calamity therein.
Pedophrasty – (coined by NN Taleb) sensationalism involving children or their abuse, sickness or risk of death, employed to manipulate an argument by means of an ad virtutem fallacy – accusation that an opponent is ‘endangering the children/starving children and therefore lacks virtue or is an asshole, by means of their argument position. Argument involving children to prop up a rationalization and make the opponent look like an asshole, as people are defenseless and suspend all skepticism in front of suffering children: nobody has the heart to question the authenticity or source of the reporting. Often done with the aid of pictures.
Perdocent – from Latin perdoceo – teach, educate, drill, train. The state of pretense, lack in diligence, or intellectual compromise wherein one bears an inability to learn and apply, outside the context of a course of instruction. One who follows a procedure well and can pass an exam, however lacks true erudition or ability to recall or apply their learning. The belief that legitimate learning can only occur in an academic structured environment. The opposite of an autodidact or antonym of autodidactic. Also a method of rhetorical argument, in that one may claim that they have not been taught something, so therefore it is invalid or does not exist.
per fama defectum – the act of making something more famous through criticizing it or pointing out its failure. Skeptics routinely fail to realize that broadcasting ostensible failure, is in essence providing their target with enormous free advertising. This is why club quality does not work and a principle reason why Goodhart’s Law (of Skepticism) applies well. Skeptics as groups… are not.
Permissive – an argument which is presented as neutral to falsely appearing to be in support of an idea, crafted in equivocal or ambiguous language, which can be also taken to support, permit, encourage or authorize antithetical conclusions.
Perpetual Victim Fallacy – when a person makes the case that they possess or a group possesses license to practice hatred or bias against others not like them, because they or their group has faced an historical and ongoing (and in reality never completely resolvable under the measures they presume) discrimination or bias against them. Racial, religious or gender tu quoque.
Persuasion Abuse – in addition to approach, characterization and substantiation, all types of persuasion as well may be abused through invalid technique, while several persuasion types are simply invalid altogether.
Rhetoric – a critique which focuses on an arguer’s ability, technique or capability to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations. An answer looking for a question, looking for a victim. Persuasion and Locution crafted in such a fashion as to be the reverse of science. A method of fooling the educated and scientifically trained, into adopting shaky positions of consensus.
Angel Questions – a form of rhetoric or propaganda wherein easy lob questions are only offered to a person or organization who otherwise should be held to account. Prefabricated FAQ’s which fall in line with a prescripted set of propaganda or politically correct thinking. Questions which appear to come from a curious third party, however are scripted to hijack a discussion down an easy path of justifying the message of the person being questioned.
Persuasion stemming from pathos – arguments which stir from passion, allegiance, opposition or hatred which may or may not interfere with the objectivity of the participant.
Polemic – negative attempt to an affirm a specific understanding via attacks on a contrary position.
Apologetic – neutral, often scripted defense or vindication of a favored viewpoint as a defense against all forms of attack.
Criticism – negative attack on a specific position, often implying personal competence and/or surreptitiously promoting an antithetical position.
Philippic (Tirade) – a negative, condemning or dismissively neutral attack on a position via appeals to common sense, stupidity, rationality or specific set of assumptions.
Coercion – an argument which is decided through the power or control held by one side over the other, often in a disputation.
Obdurate – an argument which favors an intellectual or unaffected party seeking ego or power over an injured, at risk or highly involved party, often in a disputation.
Poetry – an argument which seeks first to sway the heart of the listener (sans flattery) and soften resistance to a point or position, encouraging ethos, before its presentation.
Persuasion stemming from ethos – arguments which stir from what ought to be, from a moral, enlightening, advancing, risk averse or harm minimization standpoint.
Social Gadfly – an argument which is made through an appeal to practices, risk, impacts, standards or morals as underpinning the validity of the argument.
Sophistry – an argument which is contended though a side’s claim to virtuous features characterizing their substantiation, approach or position.
Rhetoric – a critique which focuses on an arguer’s ability, technique or capability to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.
Devil’s Advocate – neutral role play in which the favored position is probed for weakness and/or is refuted.
Permissive – an argument which is presented as neutral to falsely appearing to be in support of an idea, crafted in equivocal or ambiguous language, which can be also taken to support, permit, encourage or authorize antithetical conclusions.
Persuasion stemming from logos – arguments which employ the order of logic, reason or goal attainment in assembling a solution.
Dialectic – a positive and mutual reductive or deductive attempt to assemble a newly crafted common position.
Debate – neutral or negative bifurcated criticisms and defenses between two opposing viewpoints.
Disputation – a negative or neutral defense against an attack, in support of an attacked position or person.
Refutation – a negative or neutral criticism against an attack or position.
Rhetosophy – Rhetoric disguised as philosophy; wherein the arguer conceals his subject of contention and crafts the philosophy to appear as a stand alone ethic, independent of the point he is surreptitiously attempting to persuade.
petitio contrarium – the ad hominem rhetorical accusation that a proponent of a practice or state, is necessarily implying that they are also therefore opposed to or condemning the antithesis or exception to that practice or state. The false contention that a person who lives healthy in order to avoid illness is also therefore blaming people who get sick for ‘not being healthy’. The idea that if a parent does not favor their child to grow up to be a trash collector, they are therefore prejudiced against trash collectors. The false social notion that if a person campaigns research to stem the tide of increasing autism, that they therefore necessarily hate or are discriminatory towards people with autism.
phantasiae vectis – the principle outlining that, when a human condition is monitored publicly through the use of one statistic/factor, that statistic/factor will trend more favorable over time, without any actual real underlying improvement in its relevant domain or condition. Such singular focus often to the detriment of all other related and appropriate factors. Unemployment not reflecting true numbers out of work, electricity rates or inflation measures before key democratic elections, efficiency focus instead of effectiveness, crime being summed up by burglaries or gun deaths only, etc.
Placebo – something which is inert and non beneficial is regarded by its beneficiary to be helpful, and therefore helps.
Placebo Appeal – a placebo claim which is made in absence of any data, observation or evidence.
Placebo Effect Error – when ascribing an outcome as being a result of a placebo effect, when the outcome is causally dissociated from the placebo itself and cannot possibly be a result of a psychological or placebo bias.
Plausible Conformance – a technique of obfuscation employed by SSkeptics to enforce a classic or predetermined 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 conforming 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 Conformance therefore is a method of thought control and data filtering and in no way represents science falsification hierarchy protocols nor the scientific method.
Plausible Deniability – a state of avoidance of the scientific method in which efforts to study an item are blocked, in favor of a standing prophylactic deniability explanatory scenario which acts in lieu of the scientific method. The deniability scenario is often conforming, however does not have to necessarily present Plausible Conformance. Sometimes the deniability scenario must be sufficiently outlandish enough to deflect the risk of research into very challenging/paradigm shifting observations (Extraordinary observations demand extraordinary denials). A provisional argument which is foisted solely for its outcome in blocking the introduction of an opposing explanation or theory. In practice this is often done with little or no suggestive evidence behind it and is validated or declared true simply based upon its plausibility rather than quality, structure or basis.
Plural Arguing – propose to me one justification for your argument and I might believe it. Propose to me two justifications for your argument and I won’t believe that even you believe it. An indicator that an arguer is simply grasping at every bad sounding report or seeming counterargument related to an issue, in a desperate attempt to condemn the subject. Seemingly unaware of the logical gravitas, salience or sequitur nature of any one single argument. One single argument, when crafted according to a critical logical calculus, is all that is required to refute a contention. The plurality deludes the arguer into thinking they have condemned the subject, and might even reveal an irrational bias attempting to be passed off as science. For instance, the case of supplements, anti-supplement activists will cite cases of impurity, and that supplements are often ineffective, and that people spend a lot of money on them. None of these arguments actually is an argument to eliminate supplements.
Driving Range – Tossing out a smattering of semi-related points to see if any of them stick or if the perception of talking point numbers produces an intimidation effect. (e.g. Gish Gallop, apologetics or casuistry)
Practice Putting – Sinking repeated unsound, unrelated and peripheral or trivial (non-critical path) assertions/epithets in order to bolster a perception of ominous conclusivity. (e.g. ad vertutem, ad hominem or eristic arguments)
Pluralistic Ignorance – most often, 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.
ad populum – a condition wherein the majority of individuals believe without evidence, either that everyone else assents or that everyone else dissents upon a specific idea.
ad consentum – a self-reinforcing cycle wherein wherein the majority of members in a body believe without evidence, that a certain consensus exists, and they therefore support that idea as consensus as well.
ad immunitatem – a condition wherein the majority of individuals are subject to a risk, however most individuals regard themselves to reside in the not-at-risk group – often because risk is not measured.
ad salutem – a condition wherein a plurality or majority of individuals have suffered an injury, however most individuals regard themselves to reside in the non-injured group – often because they cannot detect such injury.
Pluralistic Single Plurocratic Fallacy – a special pleading wherein one claims that their argument applies not to just one version of its claim, but all possible versions of its claim – while failing to define a distinction of such versions – so as to cover all bases in advance. An atheist rejects belief in god ‘of any kind.’ It is therefore a special pleading distinction without a difference.
Plurality Error – adding complexity without merit to an argument. Introducing for active consideration, more than one idea, construct or theory attempting to explain a set of data, information or intelligence when there is no compelling reason to do so. Also, the adding of features or special pleading to an existing explanation, in order to adapt it to emerging data, information or intelligence – or in an attempt to preserve the explanation from being eliminated through falsification.
Plurocratic Aggregation Fallacy – wherein one provides a sufficient number of special pleadings or such mechanisms so as to be able to make the claim that others are in fact, with or without their knowledge, actually a part of the proponent’s chosen group.
Plurocratic Fallacy – when one develops an argument or theory so replete with special pleading or pluralistically complicated, that it can accommodate or appear to be supported by pretty much any data which is observed.
Poison Pill Hypothesis – the instance wherein sskeptics or agency work hard to promote lob & slam condemnation of particular ideas. A construct obsession target used to distract or attract attack-minded skeptics into a contrathetic impasse or argument. The reason this is done is not the confusion or clarity it provides, rather the disincentive which patrolling skeptics place on the shoulders of the genuine skilled researcher. These forbidden alternatives (often ‘paranormal’ or ‘pseudoscience’ or ‘conspiracy theory’ buckets) may be ridiculous or indeed ad hoc themselves – but the reason they are raised is to act as a warning to talented researchers that ‘you might be tagged as supporting one of these crazy ideas’ if you step out of line and do not visibly support the Omega Hypothesis. A great example is the skeptic community tagging of anyone who considers the idea that the Khufu pyramid at Giza might have not been built by King Khufu in 2450 bce, as therefore now supporting conspiracy theories or aliens as the builders – moreover, their being racist against Arabs who now are the genetic group which occupies modern Egypt.
Polysemy/Polyseme – the capacity for a word or phrase (polyseme) to have multiple meanings or senses, even within a semantic field. A dog can be only a male dog or all dogs depending upon the meaning intended. Such ambiguation can be accidental or purposeful. Similar in nature to equivocation.
Popper Demarcation Non-Science – purported science which simply seeks results supporting a preexisting or favored explanation. Suffers from the weakness that real science seeks to falsify, relate, predict and problem solve; understanding that a force-to-conformance does none of this.
praedicate evidentia – any of several forms of exaggeration or avoidance in qualifying a lack of evidence, logical calculus or soundness inside an argument. A trick of preemptive false-inference, which is usually issued in the form of a circular reasoning along the lines of ‘it should not be studied, because study will prove that it is false, therefore it should not be studied’ or ‘if it were true, it would have been studied’.
praedicate evidentia – hyperbole in extrapolating or overestimating the gravitas of evidence supporting a specific claim, when only one examination of merit has been conducted, insufficient hypothesis reduction has been performed on the topic, a plurality of data exists but few questions have been asked, few dissenting or negative studies have been published, or few or no such studies have indeed been conducted at all.
praedicate evidentia modus ponens – any form of argument which claims a proposition consequent ‘Q’, which also features a lack of qualifying modus ponens, ‘If P then’ premise in its expression – rather, implying ‘If P then’ as its qualifying antecedent. This as a means of surreptitiously avoiding a lack of soundness or lack of logical calculus inside that argument; and moreover, enforcing only its conclusion ‘Q’ instead. A ‘There is not evidence for…’ claim made inside a condition of little study or full absence of any study whatsoever.
Prager’s Axiom – those who won’t fight the great evils will fight lesser or make-believe evils.
Predictive Counter to Singular Existential Statement – when citing predictive evidence employed to counter a contention which is made as a Singular Existential Statement, ie. contending that x exists. Attempting to disprove the contention that something exists, by citing the number of hoaxes or antithetical cases regarding the contended subject.
Predictive Promotion of a Universal Statement – when citing predictive evidence employed to promote the idea that the set of X is comprised wholly and only by type x members. Attempting to show that all data in a contention is hoaxed by providing small sample evidence of hoaxing.
Presumptive Objection – when an objection is raised to argue in opposition, based on an a priori assumption of what the opponent is contending, or a prescribed version of what the objection raiser presumes or would like the opponent to be saying.
probis malum – it becomes moral to cheat when you’re convinced that your opponent is evil. The process of convincing one’s self or group that a targeted opponent is on the side of evil. This let’s loose the dogs of war. And all is fair in love and war. Even just. Even virtuous. A key hint of this factor in play: someone who regards all who oppose them, as equal to Hitler or another iconic symbol of evil in their mind.
The Problem of Apophenia – apophenia is the contraposition of consilience. Apophenia is the perception of or belief in connectedness among unrelated phenomena. The problem of a claim to apophenia resides in this: consilience is required to prove apophenia’s ‘unrelated’ input claim. Thereby potentially rendering it a circular appeal. Consilience derives from a state of active neutrality (skepticism). Apophenia therefore, when employed as a fallacy accusation, can only derive from an anchoring bias.
Procedural Truth – a form of argument validation which is weaker than a semantic truth (which in turn is weaker than a logical truth) wherein the ‘truth’ therein is derived merely as a trivial outcome of the constraints, method, or procedure employed and not because of any actual valid scientific or logical rule. A magician’s sleight-of-hand stage trick, or a huckster’s spin on mathematics in a corrupt purchase, both fall short of any form of truth (semantic or logical) and only tender the appearance of being correct by means of the specific approach used or a convoluted set of constraints/circumstances.
Projection Error – when an argument is made that a one’s own choices and perception can reliably extrapolate to represent the same choices and perceptions of those constituting a general population holding to the same allegiances of the arguer.
Proof by Assertion – a proposition is reworded in a politically correct, jingo-ish, SSkeptic one-liner, or false professional way such as to hope that its re-expression will validate it, despite previous contradiction.
Proof Gaming – employing dilettante concepts of ‘proof’ as a football in order to win arguments, disfavor disliked groups or thought, or exercise fake versions of science. Asking for proof before the process of science can ostensibly even start, knowing that plurality is what begins the scientific method not proof, and further exploiting the reality that science very seldom arrives at a destination called ‘proof’ anyway. Proof gaming presents itself in seven speciations:
Catch 22 (non rectum agitur fallacy) – the pseudoscience of forcing the proponent of a construct or observation, to immediately and definitively skip to the end of the scientific method and single-handedly prove their contention, circumventing all other steps of the scientific method and any aid of science therein; this monumental achievement prerequisite before the contention would ostensibly be allowed to be considered by science in the first place. Backwards scientific method and skipping of the plurality and critical work content steps of science. A trick of fake skeptic pseudoscience, which they play on non-science stakeholders and observers they wish to squelch.
Fictitious Burden of Proof – declaring a ‘burden of proof’ to exist when such an assertion is not salient under science method at all. A burden of proof cannot possibly exist if neither the null hypothesis or alternative theories nor any proposed construct possesses a Popper sufficient testable/observable/discernible/measurable mechanism; nor moreover, if the subject in the matter of ‘proof’ bears no Wittgenstein sufficient definition in the first place (such as the terms ‘god’ or ‘nothingness’).
Herculean Burden of Proof – placing a ‘burden of proof’ upon an opponent which is either arguing from ignorance (asking to prove absence), not relevant to science or not inside the relevant range of achievable scientific endeavor in the first place. Assigning a burden of proof which cannot possibly be provided/resolved by a human being inside our current state of technology or sophistication of thought/knowledge (such as ‘prove abiogenesis’ or ‘prove that only the material exists’). Asking someone to prove an absence proposition (such as ‘prove elves do not exist’).
fictus scientia – assigning to disfavored ideas, a burden of proof which is far in excess of the standard regarded for acceptance or even due consideration inside science methods. Similarly, any form of denial of access to acceptance processes normally employed inside science (usually peer review both at theory formulation and at completion). Request for proof as the implied standard of science – while failing to realize or deceiving opponents into failing to realize that 90% of science is not settled by means of ‘proof’ to begin with.
Observation vs Claim Blurring – the false practice of calling an observation or data set, a ‘claim’ on the observers’ part. This in an effort to subjugate such observations into the category of constituting scientific claims which therefore must be now ‘proved’ or dismissed (the real goal: see Transactional Occam’s Razor Fallacy). In fact an observation is simply that, a piece of evidence or a cataloged fact. Its false dismissal under the pretense of being deemed a ‘claim’ is a practice of deception and pseudoscience.
As Science as Law Fallacy – conducting science as if it were being reduced inside a court of law or by a judge (usually the one forcing the fake science to begin with), through either declaring a precautionary principle theory to be innocent until proved guilty, or forcing standards of evidence inside a court of law onto hypothesis reduction methodology, when the two processes are conducted differently.
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 unseatable ‘King of the Hill’ status is established for pet SSkeptic beliefs.
Propaganda – the skilled exploitation of acerbic or surreptitious misinformation, anonymous malinformation, along with smoothed (both simple and authoritative) disinformation, passed selectively from fiat authority to those targeted and under its influence – which is used to harm opposition voices, and to make allied voices appear more credible. Propaganda exploits the human proclivity towards fear-uncertainty-doubt (FUD), identifying the bad guy in advance (judging intent), and finally the desire for easy and simple answers.
Pseudo Deduction – a type of appeal to authority in which a journalist or media outlet will cite the circumstances around a mystery or quandary of merit and contend that they do not know which answer is correct, but they do know which answer is not correct. A hack piece which appears to be an objective assessment, however is only constructed so as to target and discredit one specific idea, usually buried as lede inside an otherwise puff-piece article pretending to develop depth on the topic’s other aspects. This affords the journalist tacit permission to conduct deduction without any evidence whatsoever (since at a superficial level they are not ‘tendering a conclusion’).
Pseudo Dissent – when claiming to make an argument for skepticism and suspension of belief, when in fact one is promoting denial of the concept or idea at hand, or is an activist promoting the antithetical idea.
Pseudo-Hypothesis – A pseudo-hypothesis explains everything, anything and nothing, all at the same time. A pseudo-hypothesis fails in its duty to reduce, address or inform. A pseudo-hypothesis states a conclusion and hides its critical path risk (magical assumption) inside its set of prior art and predicate structure. A hypotheses on the other hand reduces its sets of prior art, evidence and conjecture and makes them manifest. It then addresses critical path issues and tests its risk (magical assumption) as part of its very conjecture accountability. A hypothesis reduces, exposes and puts its magical assertion on trial. A pseudo-hypothesis hides is magical assumptions woven into its epistemology and places nothing at risk thereafter. A hypothesis is not a pseudo-hypothesis as long as it is ferreting out its magical assumptions and placing them into the crucible of accountability. Once this process stops, the hypothesis has become an Omega Hypothesis. Understanding this difference is key to scientific literacy. Grant me one hidden miracle and I can explain everything.
Pseudo-Inference – a form of very weak reverse modus absens linear induction in which a person uses an absence of Y, to infer an absence of X, based upon the post hoc ergo propter hoc solus fallacy of ‘only Y must result from X’. Any form of the rhetorical argument wherein one contends that ‘if your supposition is true, then we would have seen this, and we did not see this, therefore your supposition is false.’
Pseudo Parsimony (Crocodile Tears) – tendering the appearance of seriously contemplating the downside of an action, argument or circumstance, when in fact one is completely supportive of the occurrence, as it works to one’s advantage or supports a favored agenda.
Pseudo-Prophecy – a theory which is purported to be successful at induction and predictive power, yet as well, is able to explain everything observed. A theory which explains everything, probably explains nothing. In similar principle, a prophecy which is vague enough such that it could apply to virtually any culture at any time, based on the preponderance of sets of circumstances historically – is not a prophecy at all.
Pseudo-Reduction (Debunking) – the non-critical path disassembly of a minor subset of logical objects as a pretense of examination of the whole. A process which pretends that a robust observation is already understood fully. Which consequently then ventures only far enough into the reducible material to a level sufficient to find ‘facts’ which appear to corroborate one of six a priori disposition buckets to any case of examination: Misidentification, Hoax/Being Hoaxed, Delusion, Lie, Accident, Anecdote. This process exclusively avoids any more depth than this level of attainment, and most often involves a final claim of panductive inference (falsification of an entire domain of ideas), along with a concealed preexisting bias.
Pseudo-Refutation – a common 1-2-3 step charade of social skeptics in false refutation structure and logical calculus; employed as a ruse of conducting science. To 1) cite any fallacy an opponent has possibly made, 2) employ that fallacy as the basis to declare the opponent ‘wrong’, and moreover then 3) issue an inductive counter of their contention, bearing ample information and hidden conjecture, which tenders appearance that the social skeptic is smarter than the opponent (ingens vanitatum) and has successfully refuted their contention. When in fact, nothing of the sort was achieved and/or a deductive falsification approach was avoided, which was already readily at hand. The focus is not on the validity of the argument or any particular truth, rather in aggrandizing the social skeptic and belittling his opponent.
Pseudo-Theory (Mock Hypothesis) – a construct, belief or overarching idea which explains anything, everything and nothing – all at the same time. It is a premature and imperious proposed explanation for a set of post facto observations or phenomenon. Instead of bearing the traits of true scientific theory (hypothesis) – a pseudo-theory is quickly crafted and installed so as to exploit the advantages of pluralistic ignorance and the Lindy Effect. It explains everything without having to be approached by falsification, nor having to successfully predict anything. Usually installed as the null hypothesis before an argument is even framed around an issue, pseudo-theory is used primarily as a football enabling dismissal of competing alternatives from the point of its installation as the null hypothesis, onward. More specifically, pseudo-theory (mock hypothesis) bears the following profiling traits or essences:
1. Can be developed in full essence before any investigation even begins.
2. Never improves in its depth, description nor falsifiable or inductive strength despite ongoing research and increases in observational data.
3. Possesses no real method of falsification nor distinguishing predictive measure which is placed at risk, nor does it offer any other means of being held to account or measure..
4. Employs non-Wittgenstein equivocal/colloquial terminology or underlying premises (possibly pseudo-theory itself) where the risk of conjecture is not acknowledged.
5. Is employed primarily as a symbolic or fiat excuse to dismiss disliked or competing explanations.
6. Filters out by method during the hypothesis formulation stages, high probative value information, in favor of perceived high reliability or authorized information only (cherry sorting).
7. Can explain a multiplicity of observations or even every non-resolved question (Explanitude).
8. Is artificially installed as the null hypothesis from the very start.
9. Attains its strength through becoming a Verdrängung Mechanism.
10. Considers the absence of observation or a data collection/detection failure as suitable to stand in as ‘evidence’ (argument from ignorance).
11. Pseudo-theory can be identified in that, as less information is held or information is screened out (cherry sorted), pseudo-theory tends to appear to grow more plausible and more pervasively explanatory, and is able to be produced with less effort (armchair debunking for instance). Whereas valid theory and hypothesis tend to strengthen with research effort and an increase in information.
12. Panduction – an invalid form of inference which is spun in the form of pseudo-deductive study. Inference which seeks to falsify in one fell swoop ‘everything but what my club believes’ as constituting one group of bad people, who all believe the same wrong and correlated things – this is the warning flag of panductive pseudo-theory. No follow up series studies nor replication methodology can be derived from this type of ‘study’, which in essence serves to make it pseudo-science. This is a common ‘study’ format which is conducted by social skeptics masquerading as scientists, to pan people and subjects they dislike.
Pyrrhic Victory – an expression attributed to King Pyrrhus of ancient Greece, wherein a battle win against the Romans cost him so dearly that he is purported to have said, “If we win another such battle against the Romans, we will completely lose.” A form of ‘Winning the battle but losing the war’, a Pyrrhic victory occurs when the toll taken in winning a battle is so severe that the benefit of the win does not offset its entailed losses.
quo facto malo – Latin for ‘having done this evil’. When a person desires to do evil to another, they will manufacture or fantasize in their mind, offenses their target has committed, which serve to therefore justify their actions; harm which they had conducted or intended to conduct from very beginning, but were simply waiting for the right excuse to blame it upon.
quod fieri – (Latin: (lit.) ‘(the fact) that (now a specific thing is) to be done’) – a form of intervention bias action, in which the action is not taken from sound evidence or a history of effectiveness, but rather simply because something must be done. This type of decision or action usually is executed in a panic situation, in the face of a slow moving disaster, or a theater of cataclysmic mirage. Ironically its feckless or inane basis is compensated for, by a religious, political, or social fanaticism as to its claimed (but usually false) effectiveness. Those who raise questions regarding the action are typically cast as deplorable and anti-virtue.
quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur – that which can be declared without basis, can be dismissed without basis. This phrase, does not mean that the subject declaration is existentially incorrect, nor that the antithetical set therefore bears truth – rather simply that I can refuse to accede to such a declaration, without any particular reason or soundness in arguing. While this is a form of skepticism, the apothegm can be abused to mistakenly perform debunking. The clarifying action on the part of the skeptic being its usage as a refusal to accede versus a negation of an idea (inverse negation fallacy). The latter is not warranted inside this principle of philosophy.
Rappaport Claim or Theory – a perspective useful in detecting official deception, based upon a quip by anthropologist Roy A. Rappaport, which states “If a proposition is going to be taken to be unquestionably true, it is important that no one understand it.” A commentary on the effectiveness of obfuscation at the intersection of pseudo-theory and wicker man defenses. Such a proposition must feature the traits of pseudo-theory, in that it explains everything under a Lindy effect (and therefore likely explains nothing in reality). Moreover, every critique of such an idea’s features must be deemed as a straw man, thus its elemental claims cannot be pinned down nor tested, because every (genuine) skeptic of its tenets is inevitably ‘wrong’ in some regard (a wicker man defense).
Rat’s Option – when the appearance of a choice is offered, however the only option offered is a preordained path which involves a trap.
Reactionary Bunk – to be so threatened or angered by a pseudoscientific idea that you allow it to influence your skepticism and begin to spin pseudoscience as an argument against the idea.
‘The Reason’ Fallacy – with human beings, the reason why something is done or stands in effect, is rarely the real reason for it.
Red Herring – presentation of an argument that may or may not be logically valid on its own, but distracts the discussion away from a failing argument, as well as failing nonetheless to address the context of the issue in question or address its logical validity.
Reductionist’s Error – when one demands evidence recitation which cannot possibly be provided because the argument is over a point of philosophy or well established precedent of no particular origin. Demanding evidence for 2 + 2 = 4, or ‘charity is love.’
Reductive Fallacy – this fallacy occurs when one attempts to downplay or pejoritavely position a complex entity through reducing it to only one of its multiple aspects. Key words which are indicative of this fallacy many time are “just”, “only”, “merely”, “simply”, “nothing but”.
Relative Privation (also known as “appeal to worse problems” or “not as bad as”) – an informal fallacy of dismissing an argument or complaint due to the existence of more important problems in the world, regardless of whether those problems bear relevance to the initial argument. A form of ignoratio elenchi argument.
Relegation Error – a principle wherein an authority of control or truth establishes a circumstance wherein, any advance in validity which is produced by outside entities, is immediately appropriated to become part of the truth base of the controlling authority alone. By default, the controlling authority then must be held as the truth standard. All other entities remain in a perpetual state of practice ‘wrong’ – regardless of their actual track record. For example, successes of integrative medicine being immediately co-opted into academic science and accordingly stripped of their non-academic pedigree. Those pseudosciences, thereafter continue to be disdained and ignored as quackery, hokum and non-science by academia. By fait accompli under this method, outsider research, economic theories or controversial avenues of research will always constitute anecdotal pseudoscience, by practice of idea theft alone.
res ipsa loquitur – ‘the offense speaks for them’ – a principal of common law in some nations which cites that certain offenses imply malfeasance or maliciouness by the very nature of the offense itself, and there is not need to provide additional evidence to prove scienter, neglect, or malice as an additional element.
Researcher’s Conundrum – if I conduct objective research inside a subject which is a pseudoscience, then I am considered a pseudo-scientist. However, if I dismiss the subject out of hand, with no research, then I am regarded as having been scientific in my approach.
Rhyme as Reason Effect – rhyming statements are perceived as more truthful.
Richelieu’s Law – given a sufficient quantity of statements of merit, actions or associations on the part of an individual, a case can be made that one of those things either serves to condemn that individual or runs anathema to the essence of all their other contentions (apparent hypocrisy). An exploitative coercive argument which proceeds along the lines of the Richeliean quote: “Give me six lines written by the most honest man and I will find in them something to hang him.”
The Riddle of Nelsonian Knowledge – it behooves the holder of Nelsonian knowledge to know more about this embargoed knowledge than would be reasonably expected inside standard ignorance. The irony with Nelsonian knowledge is that it demands of its ‘ignorant party’ a detailed awareness of schema, its depth and a flawless monitoring, which is unparalleled in official knowledge. If our desire to avoid so-called ‘baseless pseudoscience’ is as casual as we imply; casual to such an extent so as to justify our complete disinterest in it as a species, then why is our knowledge of specifically what is forbidden-to-study, so damned accurate and thorough? If it is all worthless fodder, then why are its opponents so well organized, trained and armed?
Risk Flippance – the tendency to judge the total risk of a series of transactional events to be equivalent to the risk identified for only one single event in the series.
Rule Implied through Its Exception – sometimes also called the “exception proves the rule”, is a type of appeal to authority syllogism which presupposes its affirmation, in that the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes through implication that a general rule exists. For example, a sign that says “parking prohibited on Sundays” (the exception) implies that parking is allowed on the other six days of the week (the rule).
Rupert’s Axiom of Reason – you cannot reason a person out of a stance which they obtained through thinking they held the sole monopoly on reason to begin with.
SAW House/SAW Trap – a condition wherein one is left with no option but to harm another innocent person, in order to protect themself or their loved ones from demise or extensive harm – and is then blamed, punished or extorted by an outside entity for that harming of another. Named for the SAW series of movies.
Scare Crow Fabrication – crafting of a position or stance on an issue which an opponent has never tendered, implied or stated. An argument fabricated from complete fiction and used to dissuade persons from viewing that opponent in a positive light.
Scoop Inflation – when a social skepticism media outlet inflates methodical cynicism and twists maligns or lies about the facts of an event in order to increase their media outlet notoriety in becoming the first cynical news outlet to condemn new ideas or events which they do not want communicated.
Script Delusion – a person who argues from a scripted set of talking points is under the delusion both that the recipient has never heard their information before, and that the hearer regards what they have to say as honest reflections, science or free thinking.
Sea Lioning – is a type of Internet trolling which consists of bad-faith requests for evidence, or repeated questions, the purpose of which is not clarification or elucidation, but rather an attempt to derail a discussion, appeal to authority as if representing science, or to wear down the patience of one’s opponent. May involve invalid repetitive requests for proof which fall under a proof gaming fallacy and highlight the challenger’s lack of scientific literacy.
Self-Fulfilling Inductive Prediction – prediction which is confirmed through induction by means of a separate rationale which appears to place its hypothesis at risk, whose predictive measure in fact has already been proved to be true by previous deductive inference. Pseudo-hypothesis – such as showing that people who are told they are predisposed to gain weight, by means of genetic testing – actually tend to gain more weight. And attributing this effect to the psychology of ‘having been told they were predisposed’ as opposed to the simple fact that they have the genetics which predispose them in the first place. A common study trick in psychology.
Self-Sealing Argument – an argument which includes premises or constraints which alone or in concert force the argument to validity in all cases of its application, regardless of any evidence standing in support of or against the argument itself. For instance, a miracle is defined as the least probable event among a set of possibilities (premise). Historians by nature of their work, document only the most probable rendition of set of events (constraint), given a fixed set of recorded information. Therefore, by this premise-constraint tandem logic, history can never document a miracle – therefore a miracle cannot exist, and will never exist. The argument has self-sealed.
Self-Sublation (aufheben) – Hegelian principle of a dialectic which is stuck in stasis through an idea both canceling and sustaining itself at the same time. A doubled meaning: it means both to cancel (or negate) and to preserve at the same time.
Seth’s Razor – all things being equal, any explanation aside from the simplest one, constitutes a conspiracy theory. Also, everything is a conspiracy theory. The principal technique of methodical cynicism, enforcing stacks of mandatory or pseudo-probable misinformation, as truth.
Shaw’s Provision – one cannot rationally argue out what wasn’t rationally argued in — George Bernard Shaw
Shevel’s Inconsistency – a inconsistency wherein one simultaneously contends that science has shown a research subject to be invalid, yet at the same time chooses to designate any research into that subject as constituting pseudoscience. The two positions are mutually exclusive. The two positions are also not compatible when the pseudoscience in question has not been studied by science in the first place. In such a circumstance, investigators risk being accused of a being a ‘believer’, unless the researcher makes visible and extreme overtures to debunking or extreme doubt (methodical doubt, not Cartesian Doubt) on the matter, as part of their work.
Shotgun Barn Fallacy – when one attempts to state an argument and begins to gradually reframe it into a conformingly correct but completely different argument, as it becomes more and more apparent that the original argument was flawed. Firing a shotgun at the broadside of a barn and then drawing the bulls-eye around the pellet holes.
Silence Denial Fallacy – those who will deny one their silence, privacy or dissent, are in reality attempting to deny one their very existence.
sinnlos – mis-sense. A contention which does not follow from the evidence, is correct at face value but disinformative or is otherwise useless.
Skeptical Integrity Tell – a skeptic who has examined them self first, should never seek out dispute, fail to seek some essence of understanding, straw man, used canned explanations and party agendas, find entertainment in argument nor mock objective dissent in order to provide an ideological advantage for favored views. Instead, the seasoned skeptic should actually go into the field and dispassionately observe, be an autodidact despite their education background, bear new thoughts along with a compassion for those harmed, foremost. These are the sign posts on the road less traveled by; the telltale sign of whether on not one is a true skeptic.
Skeptive Dissonance – the difficult to articulate or grasp, cognitive discomfort experienced upon one’s first perception of the disconnect between fake skepticism and real or effective science.
Skulptur Mechanism – the pseudoscientific method of treating evidence as a work of sculpture. Methodical inverse negation techniques employed to dismiss data, block research, obfuscate science and constrain ideas such that what remains is the conclusion one sought in the first place. A common tactic of those who boast of all their thoughts being ‘evidence based’. The tendency to view a logical razor as a device which is employed to ‘slice off’ unwanted data (evidence sculpting tool), rather than as a cutting tool (pharmacist’s cutting and partitioning razor) which divides philosophically valid and relevant constructs from their converse.
Slack Exploitation (Ambiguity) – a form of equivocation or rhetoric wherein an arguer employs a term which at face value appears to constrain the discussion or position contended to a specific definition or domain. However, a purposely chosen word or domain has been employed which allows for several different forms/domains of interpretation of the contention on the part of the arguer. Often this allows the arguer to petition the listener to infer a more acceptable version of his contention, when in fact he is asserting what he knows to be a less acceptable form of it.
Social Conformance Bias – any influence which implies that if you do not agree, then you will be in some ways rejected to ostracized by your former peer group. Employment of peer/media/social pressure instead of rational case and argument to establish consensus.
Social Priming – preparing a person to adopt a particular desired stance by encouraging or through sleight-of-hand getting them to identify with the mindset of a person who would take that stance, in advance of asking the intended question. For example, asking a person to identify what a skeptic is, before asking them if they consider mediumship as a domain worthy of research.
solum fieri – the fallacy of implied only occurrence. A common unspoken assumption premise of a religious or virtue argument (usually in the form of a suggestion or accusation), wherein the instance being considered or the person being targeted is unsoundly treated in isolation – as if the only occurrence of such an event or by considering the person to be in isolation. Introducing the idea that if a person gives 9 times but not the 10th time, then they are selfish or protectionist. Or, that a person should adopt fear because they are all alone, and are the first person to ever have encountered a specific troubling situation. A trick of isolating an intended victim, similar to but even more egregious than using anecdote as a final proof.
Sophistry Fallacy – when a poorly skilled or experienced philosopher loses an argument, they will inevitably resort to an accusation of sophistry on the part of their opponent. They may not even grasp the fact that their ‘opponent’ is not even an opponent at all; rather a peer simply seeking to issue a word of caution, not disagreement. Caution which they interpret to be a threat; an advisement they possess a dearth of intellect with which to grasp.
- One introduces the philosophical level of discussion in the first place,
- One banks on the assumption that no one else is around who is sufficiently skilled to discuss the issue (an appeal to self-authority),
- One perceives a word of open-minded skeptical caution, incorrectly as an argument in opposition,
- One perceives (correctly or incorrectly) that an inner hypocrisy is now potentially exposed and they are now in danger of losing the argument which they started,
- The discussion resides now at a level above the original claimant’s intellectual or experiential capacity, and
- Its last recourse argument is foisted, after exhausting all other memorized arguing scripts (save for the sophistry claim itself).
Sowert’s Law – a technique of deflection wherein a claim to supposed fact is derived from a stand-alone, manufactured, or trivial observation which is made inside a purposeful context of ignorance or isolation, stripped of its corroborating or supporting aspects. Ignorance + Trivia = “Fact”.
Special Pleading – an attempt to cite a logical object, system or example as an exception to a generally accepted rule, situation, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. The lack of criticism may be as simple as an oversight (e.g., the reasons are thought to be obvious) on the claimant’s part, or further, an application of a double standard.
Special Pleading ad hoc Accusation – when one resorts to accusing an opponent of special pleading based upon its ad hoc rescue potential in an argument. Wherein one regards any reasoning about logical object, system or example to constitute ‘special pleading’ simply because it isn’t about, or doesn’t apply to everything.
Specious – an argument which is only superficially plausible, but actually bears a significant probability that it is wrong. One misleading in appearance, especially misleadingly attractive or plausible.
Sponsor Practice Hyperbole – the fallacy of regarding the process of observation by a sponsor of an idea, to constitute a presentation of ‘science’ on the sponsors’ part. This in an effort to subjugate such activity falsely into the realm of pseudoscience for the simple act of curiosity concerning a disfavored subject. In fact research is simply that, a set of observations, and its false dismissal under the pretense of being deemed a ‘pseudoscience’ is a practice of deception and itself, pseudoscience.
Steel Man – a method of arguing in which an arguer will first outline as accurate a depiction of their opponent’s position as they can muster – and thereafter cite where indeed they find that stance to possess merit or strength. This will usually be followed by, rather than simply a critique of weaknesses, a form of ‘but regarding this weakness, I have an idea which I think might work better instead…’ The opposite of straw man arguing.
Straw Man Argument – crating of or logical calculus under, an argument which either does not exist, is irrelevant or is manipulated and twisted into a different form by a proponent.
Straw Man Conformance – the idea that since a person or group believes or considers subject A to be a potentiality, then an opponent insists that they therefore have endorsed extreme misrepresentations of subject A as well.
Straw Man Egoism – a self-focused belief that every argument raised by an opponent is a straw man issued at them personally. Especially when the argument is common inside the domain being discussed.
Straw Man Fallacy – misrepresentation of either an ally or opponent’s position, argument or fabrication of such in absence of any stated opinion. Exists in several forms:
Straw Man Profiling – profiling of an individual based on an extreme or misrepresented version of their position. Any man can be made to appear irrational and vile, if his opponents only are allowed to speak on his behalf.
Subadditivity Effect – the tendency to judge probability of a broader argument to be less than the probabilities of the components of that same argument.
Superior Grasp of the Obvious – the bias on the part of one concealing a rational ego which has been inflated to enormous levels. Levels of ego betrayed by implication and oxymoron that one’s self is the only person who could possibly grasp that which is readily obvious inside complex questions. In fact, a prowess of such potential that the mastery of the obvious can be done from a university cubicle or parents’ basement, and in 4 minutes of research.
Swift’s Axiom – a principle which states ‘You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into’, attributed to 18th Century Dean of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Dublin, satirist and poet, Jonathan Swift.
Taleb’s But – the principle which proceeds along the line of the Nassim Nicholas Taleb quote “Everything before the “but” is meant to be ignored by the speaker; and everything after the “but” should be ignored by the listener.”
Taleb’s Contraposition – For real people, if something works in theory, but not in practice, it doesn’t work. For social skeptics and many academics, if something works in practice, but not in theory, it doesn’t exist.
Taleb’s Law of Tolerance – a toleration of intolerance will always escalate to extremism and proscription as the standard.
Technopologist – a science communication journalist who purposely (or even worse cannot grasp) confuses issues of risk inside the public trust as simply constituting a matter of science or technology. In this manner any objections to violations of public trust or the introduction of excessive risk in order to obtain a quick profit or market domination, can be spun as a movement of an anti-science, anti-enlightenment or anti-technology nature.
TES’s Razor – among competing alternatives, all other things being equal, prefer the one for which discussion or research is embargoed.
Transactional Occam’s Razor Fallacy (Appeal to Ignorance) – the false contention that a challenging construct, observation or paradigm must immediately be ‘explained.’ Sidestepping of the data aggregation, question development, intelligence and testing/replication steps of the scientific method and forcing a skip right to its artificially conclusive end (final peer review by ‘Occam’s Razor’).
Transactional Popper Demarcation Error – incorrectly citing a topic as being a pseudo science, when in fact its sponsors are seeking falsification based protocols to counter the antithetical premise to their case, or its sponsors are employing predictive studies being employed simply to establish plurality for sponsorship inside the scientific method.
Transporter Paradox – a paradox which plays off of the notion of a Star Trek transporter mechanism. A thought experiment in which a subject is transported to a location, and then the memory pattern buffer of the transporter causes a second copy of that person to also accidentally be created the next day. Both individuals are that person, but the first individual is regarded as the real person. So how does the original person know that they are not already a copy of their self from some earlier time – or even from a place with no time? This introduces the fallibility of conjecturing that recreating a mind simply through replication of its physical neural array and memories, is inductively suggestive of nihilism. One cannot inductively prove that that mind was not a replication of an earlier form, or even immortal form.
Truzzi Fallacy – the presumption that a position of skepticism or plausible conformance on a specific issue affords the skeptical apologist tacit exemption from having to provide authoritative outsider recitation or evidence to support a contended claim or counter-claim.
Turtles all the Way Down Error – originally the regress problem in cosmology posed by the “unmoved mover” paradox, now more commonly used in jocular fashion to elicit that an explanatory idea has in epistemological terms, simply shifted its paradox to a different or less visible plane of accountability, and not resolved it.
Twitter’s Razor – all things being equal a compliant one-liner tends to be victory for the approved elite. The mistaken belief that a one-liner both expresses something the recipient has never heard before, and serves to increase the amount of knowledge or value inside the world at large.
Twittertation Error – when one demands inappropriate or impossible comprehensive recitation in a chat venue which is not designed for comprehensive recitation.
Two Sided Coin Objection – when a person is prepared with a dismissive quip no matter which version of objective data arises. If it is too precise, that is the problem, too broad, that is the problem, too blurry vs. too clear, too recent vs. too old, meta-analysis vs. cohort studies, etc. An indication of existential commitment to such an extent that really no objective data will ever suffice in the person’s state of mind.
Ultracrepidarian – an expression for someone who insists upon tendering an opinion on things, or even or a single topic they know little or nothing about. A group or media entity who saturates available information with worthless, misinforming, disinforming, mis-sense, nonsense, incoherent or other ignoratio elenchi opinion, passed as in-club recitation authority, in order to obfuscate or squelch the argument surrounding an issue.
Unbegründet – “2 plus 2 equals 4, and your momma’s a whore” – a baseless, unfounded, or invalid inference concealed inside an otherwise competent scientific endeavor, which nonetheless is pulled from thin air. A statement, posed as a conclusion of research, which is juxtaposed in the abstract or conclusions of a detailed scientific assay or study, which is related to the subject yet possesses no sound backing inside the work. Often Narrative-conforming statements, these are strategically introduced because the author knows they will be favored in peer review, or might be conflated as having been derived from the research contained in the study itself – when nothing of the sort is true.
Univariate Error – a procedural error (not a ‘fallacy’) wherein one is misled by the phenomenon where it’s possible for two multivariate distributions to overlap along any one variable, but be cleanly separable or have the relationship disappear when one examines the whole relational or configuration space in its entirety.
unsinnig – nonsense. A proposition of compromised coherency. Feynman ‘not even wrong.’
uti dolo (trick question) – a question which is formed for the primary purpose of misleading a person into selecting (through their inference and/or questioner’s implication) the incorrect answer or answer not preferred inside a slack exploited play of ambiguity, interpretation, sequence, context or meaning. The strong version being where the wrong context is inferred by means of deceptive question delivery; the weak version being where the question is posed inside a slack domain where it can be interpreted legitimately in each of two different ways – each producing a differing answer.
Utility Blindness – when simplicity or parsimony are incorrectly applied as excuse to resist the development of a new scientific explanatory model, data or challenging observation set, when indeed the participant refuses to consider or examine the explanatory utility of any similar new model under consideration.
Utility Blindness – when simplicity or parsimony are incorrectly applied as excuse to resist the development of a new scientific explanatory model, data or challenging observation set, when indeed the participant refuses to consider or examine the explanatory utility of any similar new model under consideration.
Verdrängung Mechanism – the level of control and idea displacement achieved through skillful employment of the duality between pluralistic ignorance and the Lindy Effect. The longer a control-minded group can sustain an Omega Hypothesis perception by means of the tactics and power protocols of proactive pluralistic ignorance, the greater future acceptability and lifespan that idea will possess. As well, the harder it will to be dethrone as an accepted norm or perception as a ‘proved’ null hypothesis.
Verschlimmbesserung – (German) to make something worse while trying to make it better. The fallacy of judging disasters by the measure that, those who bore the ‘good intentions’ should bear no fault, or place themselves as disconnected from the disaster.
via negativa (vs. via positiva) – a way of describing something by saying what it is not. For example, employing a finite concept of attribute or object which can be employed as a non-descriptive for God or ultimate reality or a human condition, etc. This bears less confidence in inference than does a via positiva attribute or description.
virgo sui – the principle of the virgin self; a psychology which exists as a counterpart to pathological mindsets inside immoral activity. A childish mind cannot accept nor recognize their own dark nature or nefarious actions. A criminal never thinks that they actually committed a/the crime, or may excuse it as justified in some way by means of society, the victim, being street smart or simply that this is the way of their world. A person who commits a wrong and immediately denies inside their own mind that they did it or are culpable. The opposite of repentance.
Virtue Telescope – employment of a theoretical virtue benefit projected inside a domain which is distant, slow moving, far into the future, diffuse or otherwise difficult to measure in terms of both potential and resulting impact, as exculpatory immunity for commission of an immoral act which is close by, obvious, defined and not as difficult to measure. Similar to but converse of an anachronistic fallacy, or judging distant events based on current norms.
‘Vitamins Don’t Cure Cancer’ Fallacy – an informal fallacy wherein the task of proof or effect threshold assigned to the test subject is far in excess of, or out of context with, the contentions being made about the test subject. Studies which show that supplements don’t cure cancer, therefore they are all a waste of money, or there are 28 types of depression, so inflammation is not related to depression, or quality of life improvement is not a ‘medical outcome’. Ridiculous contentions which are not backed by the study which they cite as evidence.
Wicker Man Argument – when an arguer has assembled an array of straw man or misrepresentation arguments so canned, pervasive or presumptuous that it appears that the arguer is arguing with a completely different person than the person with whom they are engaged in discussion. A penultimate, habitual or standing straw man misrepresentation of opposing thought and persons.
Wicker Man Defense – a position, as in the case of religion’s often being called ‘the ultimate strawman,’ where so many special exemptions are able to be pleaded or apologists habitually spin the idea that any critique offered towards their side constitutes strawman, ignorance or tu quoque errors – that the defended philosophy or position actually has no effective defining essence which can be pinned down in the first place.
Wittgenstein Error (Contextual) – employment of words in such as fashion as to craft rhetoric, in the form of persuasive or semantic abuse, by means of shift in word or concept definition by emphasis, modifier, employment or context.
Wittgenstein Error (Epistemological) – the contention that a proposition must be supported by empirical data or else it is meaningless, nonsense or useless, or that a contention which is supported by empirical data is therefore sensible, when in fact the proposition can be framed into meaninglessness, nonsense or uselessness based upon its underlying state or lacking of definition, structure, logical calculus or usefulness in addressing a logical critical path.
bedeutungslos – meaningless or incoherent. A proposition or question which resides upon a lack of definition, or which contains no meaning in and of its self.
unsinnig – nonsense or non-science. A proposition of compromised formal structure or not framed in a scientifically valid form of reduction. Feynman ‘not even wrong.’
sinnlos – mis-sense, logical untruth or lying. A contention which does not follow from the evidence, is correct at face value but disinformative or is otherwise useless.
Wittgenstein Error (Epistemological Bias) – the contention that a proposition must be supported by empirical data or else it is nonsense or meaningless, or that a contention which is supported by empirical data is therefore sensible, when in fact the proposition is at least in part critically dependent upon a tenet of philosophy which is more than simply elemental in nature.
Wolfinger’s Inductive Paradox – an ‘anecdote’ to the modus praesens (observation or case which supports an objective presence of a state or object) constitutes data, while an anecdote to the modus absens (observation supporting an appeal to ignorance claim that a state or object does not exist) is merely an anecdote. One’s refusal to collect or document the former, does not constitute skepticism. Relates to Hempel’s Paradox.
Work Content Fallacy – the mistake of approaching the valuation of a product, idea, or work of science by the amount of direct labor, analysis, education, or sheer numbers of persons involved in the effort. One can spend eight years completing higher education, that still does not make their opinions smarter. One can place a decade into making a cow patty symmetrical, yet it will still be a patty of cow dung.
Yule’s Razor – all things being equal, favor a successive falsifying study/conclusion which was serendipitous in nature, over an initial suggestive one featuring anchoring bias in its discovery, inclusion, and methodology. Data volume and Yule-Simpson contradiction bear less importance than this razor.
The Ethical Skeptic, “The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation: Misrepresentation by Argument, WordPress, 17 Jan 2020; Web, https://theethicalskeptic.com/2009/09/24/the-tree-of-knowledge-obfuscation-misrepresentation-by-argument/
This is great! I’m looking for the origin of the term “steel man” as used here. Any leads?
Simon Sorry,
I usually attribute principles to their originators if that is known. In the case of the term ‘steel man’ – just observed it to be in common circulation in forums and blogs. However, I have crafted my own flavor of it inside this lexicon, to differentiate it from simply ‘enhanced straw man’ arguing.
TES :-)