Popper Demarcation Practice and Malpractice
Many people presume the Popper Demarcation Principle to distinguish the boundary between science and pseudoscience. While the Popper Demarcation indeed involves this aspect, the two ideas are not congruent. The actual delineation hinges on the role of predictive and falsifying testing practiced by those entities claiming the methods of science, or science as the body of knowledge. He contrasts this claimant group with those who make no such claim to science at all. False Skepticism to Popper, was also pseudoscience, because it claims to be conducting science – but does not employ rules of evidence or falsification. This includes the practice where his definitions are abused in order to falsely condemn disliked subjects.
If your version of skepticism purports that it ’employs the tools of science to make the most probable conclusion’ on behalf of science, or calls an entire subject a ‘pseudoscience,’ …then beware.
Karl Popper proposed the demarcation principle, as a means to approach the problem of how we differentiate science from non-science in principle. This categorization of that which resides outside of science is a non-pejorative filtering of those mechanisms which can be relied upon to product the body of knowledge. To put it another way, the demarcation problem consists in crafting principles, constraints, reasons, or conditions to regard something like epigenetics under “science” and place a discipline (falsified, yet still pretending to represent science) such as phrenology as a pseudoscience. The two critical aspects of the Popper Demarcation Principle involve the separate issues regarded below: The issue of the Role of Predictive Study, and the claim or lack thereof, of doing or representing science. In absence of framing Popper Demarcation inside these two clarifying factors, much confusion and false condemnation can be spun by fake skeptics, through Popper Demarcation Malpractice.
The Ambidextrous Nature of Predictive Studies
Predictive study is treated differently by Popper, as distinguished by its role of employment in the methods of science as opposed to the conclusions of science (see graphic to the right). Popper, like any scientist, fully understood the critical role of predictive studies in the scientific method, as well as the critical role of prediction making ability inside a successful theory. He was not discounting these valuable components/steps out of the process of science. What Popper was framing, is the circumstance where predictive study alone is employed to substantiate conclusions as accepted or peer-ready science. This type of science is the chief method of hypoepistemology practices by those wishing to push a social agenda. In this role, predictive studies can be employed as pseudoscience. The Ethical Skeptic must discern the circumstance where an epistemology is based only on scant statistics, studies of studies, or predictive tests – and has not fully challenged its theory with ascertainable falsification testing or past falsification achievements (Promotification or Popper Error).
However, for those who confuse or conflate the methods of science with the body of scientific knowledge – the role of predictive study is sacrificed at the alter of agenda. In such approaches, employing equivocal terms or proxy equivocation in their articulation of the issue of predictability, every proposed claim about what distinguishes science from pseudoscience can be confused with a counter-example. Karl Popper postulated that falsifiability stands as the criterion which distinguishes science from pseudoscience. If any set of claims or theory can be shown true through the disciplines of falsification, it belongs to the domain of science. Many people wrongly presume this to mean that if any set of claims or theory is innately unfalsifiable, it belongs to the domain of pseudoscience. This delineation is incoherent as some un-testable scientific claims sets, such as M-theory or multi-verse interpretations are not considered pseudoscience.
If they were enforced based on predictive study only, as a finished body of knowledge, that would indeed be hypoepistemology pseudoscience. But in science as a method, M-theory or multi-verse predictive studies are indeed considered science.
The key opportunistic play here for Social Skeptics is that both, context dancing between science as a body of knowledge and science as a method, or the equivocation involved in merging the two ideas, produces incoherence and useful confusion. A method of condemning subjects by dancing between the two contexts of the Popperian term. A simple prima facia incoherence that Karl Popper, a seasoned scientist and philosopher surely would have, and did, recognize. Did the people who presume this equivocation, think Karl Popper to be a simpleton, more stupid than are they? The reality that escapes the philosophically dilettante is that he did indeed deal with this inconsistency. The Handbook of the Philosophy of Science expounds on this:
The phrases “demarcation of science” and “demarcation of science from pseudoscience” are often used interchangeably, and many authors seem to have regarded them as equal in meaning. In their view the task of drawing the outer boundaries of science is essentially the same as that of drawing the boundary between science and pseudoscience.
This picture is oversimplified. All non-science is not pseudoscience, and science has non-trivial borders to other non-scientific phenomena, such as metaphysics, religion, and various types of non-scientific systematized knowledge.¹
Claiming and Not Claiming to Do or Represent Science
There is a stark difference between those things which claim to be science, and those things which claim nothing of the sort. If my neighbor runs over and swears that he saw The Chupacabra running through his backyard, he is not claiming to do science, he is not practicing pseudoscience. If he goes to the city council and cites that there are hundreds of missing cats and dogs in the area, he is still not practicing pseudoscience. This set of activity simply constitutes observation and advocacy (or possibly fraud). This is a key understanding which differentiates the false skeptic from the real skeptic. It is when he makes the nonsense claim that he has done research, and by examining the poop of the supposed animal in a lab, now claims that what he saw in his backyard must be an interdimensional being, released by UFO’s, because its poop contained animal proteins not found on this Earth. That is when the person making such claims has indeed stepped into the bounds of pseudoscience. At no time is he ever a pseudo scientist simply because he made an observation of something called by fake skeptics ‘a pseudoscience.’ ¹ ²
Even if he becomes an advocate, and attempts to petition science to study the issue, he is not dabbling in pseudoscience. To kill this type of process through fake skepticism, is to kill the process of science; yes, even on a brazenly ridiculous topic like The Chupacabra. Presuming that one is doing science, by calling the gentleman a liar, or deluded, is in itself – a claim Ξ pseudoscience. Many fake and shallow skeptics fail to discern this important aspect of the Popper Demarcation principle.
Among things which are unfairly labeled as pseudoscience by ill intended fake skeptics, are:
- Sponsorship of ideas for research
- Subjects which are ignored through social epistemology or pressure
- Positions which appear to oppose oligarch corporations
- Political positions
- Religious tenets
- Citing of anomalous observations
- Moral positions
- Art, fiction, creative works
- Advocacy for health observations and those who suffer
- Anecdotal evidence which is ignored on a grand scale
By practicing Popper Demarcation Malpractice, Social Skeptics can manage the control of access to science, effectively screening out disliked topics, observations and ideas.
Popper Demarcation Malpractice
/philosophy : science : pseudoscience : malpractice/ : the dilettante presumption that if any set of claims or theory is innately non-falsifiable, it belongs to the domain of pseudoscience. Wrongly presuming a subject to be a pseudoscience, instead of false practices pretending to be science. Purposely or unskillfully conflating the methods of science with the body of scientific knowledge, employing amphibology or proxy equivocation in their articulation of the issue, wherein every proposed claim about what distinguishes science from pseudoscience can be confused with a counter-example. This renders the demarcation boundary of no utility, and reduces overall understanding.
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.
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.
The reality is that there exist three domains of idea development: Science, Pseudoscience, Parascience/Non-science. Understanding these three domains and skillfully applying that understanding inside the discourse of ideas is the ethic of one who sincerely wants to know. It is the habit of one who practices Ethical Skepticism as opposed to the purposely smoke and mirrors, equivocation imbued, pretend science and idea assassinating fake version of skepticism.
Science (a method, a discipline and a body of knowledge)
The application of observation, thought, reason, testing, and peer input to arrive at conclusions which reliably can be added to the body of knowledge. That body of knowledge itself.
Pseudoscience (a method and pretense only)
A process which claims to arrive at conclusions by means of science, or citing of elements it purports to exist in the body of scientific knowledge, where in fact neither adheres to nor originates from, actual methods of science.
Attempting to demonstrate free energy by sleight-of-hand battery switching and amperage measurements
Attempting to show one is located on the Earth’s equator by demonstrating differing water drain patterns both south and north of a fictitiously drawn line
Thinking disciplines of benefit to mankind, which seek to improve the human condition, or solve perplexing issues, or even assist science in its overall efficacy, but do not necessarily make the claim of employing science in order to derive such ethics.
Disciplines of human endeavor which do not employ, nor claim to employ science in their execution. However may involve some science in their development – or turn into a discipline of science through diligent sponsorship.
An Example of Popper Demarcation Malpractice:
Sometimes the term “pseudoscience” is used in a wider sense in order to pejoratively filter out ideas considered by researching sponsors, advocates, legal activists, politicians and those making disturbing observations. The abuse of the term in this fashion, as constituting that which
(2′) it is part of a non-scientific doctrine whose major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific.
(2″) is part of a doctrine whose major proponents try to create the impression that it represents the most reliable knowledge on its subject matter.²
This is false, because the practice which established that ‘proponents try to create the impression that it represents science’ fails the Popper Demarcation itself. So if we are applying Popper here, we cannot create postulates which violate the very principle we are seeking to construct. Declaring a subject, in absence of evidence proving such a claim, to be constituted solely by individuals who are pretending to be science – 1. claims to hold a body of knowledge, and 2. does so without a basis of true science to derive that knowledge. Therefore, such a claim is itself, pseudoscience, according to Popper.
The SSkeptics Dictionary for example (http://www.skepdic.com/pseudosc.html) incorrectly defines pseudoscience as
“A pseudoscience is set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific.”
This definition is an incoherent one-liner – Wittgenstein unsinnig: highly convoluted and implication laden professional-sounding babble, articulated so as to tender the appearance of being simple. It is incompatible with parsimony in this regard; and as well, ironically fails the Popper Demarcation of Science itself, because
- It conflates ideas into ‘theories’ by default in an effort to pejoratively filter them – a practice of pseudoscience. A theory implies a set of claims under science method, which ideas may not involve. A very similar equivocation to calling an observation a ‘claim.’ So you can then dismiss it as ‘failing science.’
- It is NOT ideas which are pseudo-scientific – rather
- those things purported to already exist in the body of knowledge, when indeed such is not the case, and
- those things purported to be based on methods which are scientific, but in reality are not.
- It regards a SUBJECT MATTER (theories) rather than a contention or process, as that which qualifies something as pseudoscience. This is errant and constitutes a logical fallacy – and to those who understand this – yet commit the offense so as to screen subjects from access to science, also constitutes a practice of fraud.
- It may or may not imply that proponents of the ‘ideas’ try to create the impression that they represent science or the most reliable knowledge on its subject matter. Again, such a claim cannot be made outside of research and scientific practice; constituting in its implied claim, defamation and pseudoscience.
- It makes a final contention that certain ideas are ‘not scientific’ based on a prescribed set of conclusions or the personal level of knowledge on the part of the observer. This is not how science nor skepticism work at all.
The grasp of this differentiation is a key litmus test distinguishing a false skeptic from a true skeptic. They claim to represent science to you in this misrepresentation sleight-of-hand. The shallow and inexperienced might buy this at face value, but an Ethical Skeptic will not.
It is nothing but Popper Demarcation Malpractice… scientific quackery.
¹ Mahner, Martin, 2007. “Demarcating Science from Non-Science”, pp 515-575 in Theo Kuipers (ed.) Handbook of the Philosophy of Science: General Philosophy of Science – Focal Issues, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
² Hansson, Sven Ove, “Science and Pseudo-Science”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/pseudo-science/>.
September 20, 2015 - Posted by The Ethical Skeptic | Argument Fallacies | appeal to skepticism fallacy, ethical skepticism, fake skeptics, falsification, nonscience, parascience, popper demarcation problem, Pseudoscience, social skepticism
No comments yet.
This blogsite rigorously complies with the Fair Use Act (17 U.S.C. § 107)
“Refreshing to the heart of new and weary seekers of truth alike. Some of the most compelling new philosophy of our time. If you claim to be a skeptic and have not read The Ethical Skeptic, you risk sophomoric bandwagon irrelevancy.” -TRB
“TES, I hope you realize the high quality of material you have produced here. Hopefully you will choose a world stage someday and take personal credit for it. The material is that good.” -AOD
There is a pro-science, educated, rational and resolute movement afoot. A movement of conscience on the part of people just like me. Science and Engineering professionals who apply skepticism daily in their STEMM disciplines, but who nonetheless are raising a warning flag of concern. Welcome to my blog. Within its pages, I hope to portray and teach genuine skepticism, or what is called Ethical Skepticism. Indeed, its mission is to promote the wonder of science through a contrast of authentic skeptical discipline, versus its distorted, pseudo-intellectual and socio-politically motivated counterfeit. I am a graduate level science and engineering professional who faithfully participates in man’s quest for knowledge. I lament however its imprisonment by control driven special interests and vigilante bullying from dogmatic social epistemologists such as science communicating journalists, stage magicians, agenda celebrities, psychologists and oligarch, religious and cartel activists. As you survey my blog, hopefully you will encounter things you’ve personally never considered before. Indeed, its mission is to act as a resource guide for their victims and to foster foremost a discerning perspective for us all on the Cabal of pretenders who abuse and control falsely in the name of science.
A series in parts, which defines the philosophy and outlines the tenets and structure of Ethical Skepticism
A compendium of fallacy and corrupted thought commonly employed inside Social Skepticism
The formal and informal fallacy of deceptively promoting one’s self and ideals through pretense of skepticism
It is plurality, and not the simplest explanation, which bears merit in professional research and the actual scientific method
The compulsory set of core religious beliefs misrepresented as skepticism, atheism, free thinking and science
ABOUT SOCIAL SKEPTICISM AND SSKEPTICS
Social Skepticism is a sponsored activist movement which functions as an integral part of the socially engineered mechanisms attempting to dominate human thought, health, welfare and education. This control serving as means to an end, towards subjection of all mankind’s value to mandated totalitarian institutions. Institutions which avert legal exposure by abusing skepticism to serve their goals. Ends formulated by a social elite; however, which stand threatened by innate elements of mankind’s being and background.
An ideologue driven enforcement therefore of a social epistemology crafted to obfuscate mankind’s understanding of such innate elements. Its members practice a form of vigilante bullying, employed in lieu of science to dismiss disliked subjects, persons and evidence before they can ever see the light of scientific day. Seeking to establish as irrefutable truth a core philosophy of material monism, dictating that only specific authorized life physical and energy domains exist. A comprehensive program of enforcement sought accordingly, through rather than the risk of ethical scientific methodology, instead a practice of preemptive methodical cynicism and provisional knowledge which underpins an embargo policy regarding, cultivates ignorance and institutionalizes intimidation surrounding any subject which could ostensibly serve as a pathway to falsify their power enabling illusory religion of Nihilism.
These pretenders typically have never conducted any science themselves, nor do they represent science or scientific thinking.
Social Skeptics falsely identify themselves as ‘skeptics.’ Indeed rather, SSkeptics are self or institutionally appointed Bernaysian engineering activists, posing as rational and logical subject matter authorities enforcing one specific answer in a broad array of pluralistic topics of contention, while at the same time “doubting“ all other potentialities. Far from actually practicing skepticism and abandoning the scientific method when it does not suit their embargo, SSkeptics seek to intimidate scientists and the media, enforce doctrines lacking scientific basis and imperiously pass them to the public as unassailable truth.
We Are Anonymous http://anonhq.com/
Skeptopathy Magazine http://skeptopathy.com/wp/
Hoofnagle the Science Cat https://www.facebook.com/HoofnagleScienceCat/
Debunking Skeptics http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Skeptical about Skeptics http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/
Michael Prescott http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/
Brian Martin http://www.bmartin.cc/index.html
My Socrates Note http://my-socrates-note.blogspot.com/?m=1
Facebook Groups https://www.facebook.com/groups/925334447494947/
The Difference Between Ethical and Social Skepticism
Ethical Skepticism is a blend of Empirical and Philosophical Skepticism, the tenets of both of which are vetted as to their efficacy in delivering value and clarity inside man’s knowledge development process. It rejects the abuse of Cartesian Doubt as a racket of a priori simplistic predictive based knowledge, self delusion and Methodical Cynicism. Instead, Ethical Skepticism dictates a mute disposition on any topic which science has not studied or the Ethical Skeptic himself has not studied. Ethical Skepticism petitions for Ockham’s Razor plurality in research when sponsorship has shown adequate necessity, and opposes all efforts to squelch such research.
Ethical Skeptics apply skepticism as one of a set of tools employed inside a life characterized by open curiosity, discipline, observation. They continually investigate in order to ask the right question in accordance with the complete scientific method; not defend the right answer. They bear paramount, the personal and professional ethic of defending the integrity of the knowledge development process. Skepticism is a way of preparing the mind and data sets, in order to accomplish science.
Social Skepticism is false a priori deduction combined with stacked provisional induction used as a masquerade of science method in order to enforce a belief set as constituting science. It is an abuse of Cartesian Doubt as a racket of a priori, simplistic, provisional, risk-ignorant knowledge, self delusion and methodical cynicism. It seeks an embargo of certain aspects of man’s knowledge development process. It rejects Philosophical Skepticism and employs Empirical Skepticism only when its tenets support specific knowledge embargo agendas. Instead of tendering mute disposition on any topic which science has not studied, Social Skepticism corrupts science into methodical cynicism employed to to squelch such research and enforces false interpretations of scientific conclusions to support its embargo goals.
Social Skeptics wear SSkepticism as an identity, apply intimidation and doubt only to subjects they disdain, and enforce an embargo regarding any and all observations or science which might serve to undermine their Cabal authorized ontology. They eschew data collection; instead undertaking social activism and unethical activity, any means necessary to enforce the ‘right answer’ and secure the power of their sponsor institutions. Social Skeptics abuse skepticism to act in lieu of science, not as subset thereof.
- Follow The Ethical Skeptic on WordPress.com
Top Posts & Pages
- Ten Reasons People No Longer Find Skeptics Credible
- The Tower of Wrong: The Art of Professional Lying
- No You are Not an Atheist, You are a Nihilist
- Image: The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation
- The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation
- What is Social Skepticism?
- Formal vs Informal Fallacy and Their Abuse
- No Difference Between Fundamentalism and Pseudoscience
- The Appeal to Skepticism Fallacy
- Formal vs Informal Fallacy and Their Abuse
- Poser Science: Proof Gaming
- Discerning Sound from Questionable Science Publication
- The Tower of Wrong: The Art of Professional Lying
- Dear Journalism Schools We Deserve Better Quality Graduates as Aspiring Science Communicators
- The Ten Indicators of Methodical Genocide
- A Word About Polls
- And I Have Touched the Sky: The Appeal to Plenitude Error
- Contrasting Deontological Intelligence with Cultivated Ignorance
- Nurturing the New Mind: The Disruptive Nature of Ethics
- The Warning Indicators of Stacked Provisional Knowledge
- The Seven Features of Great Philosophy
- Spotting the Humpty Numpty
- The Joy of Sleight-of-Hand Manipulation
- Differentiating Scientific Literacy from Social Propaganda
- How Glyphosate Practices Serve to Increase Our Diet Risk Exposure
- Lies of Which I Disabused Myself Along the Way
- Islam, Corruption and Socialism All Relate in Direct Proportion to Human Suffering
- Ethical Skepticism – Part 8 – The Watchers Must Also Be Watched
- What Corporations Do When Bankrupt of Ideas/Ethics
- The Inverse Problem and False Claims to ‘Settled Science’
- Abuse of the Dunning-Kruger Effect
- The War Against Supplements Continues to Revel in Harmful Pseudoscience
- Ethical Skepticism – Part 7 – The Unexpected Virtue of Allow-For Thinking
- Never Never Land: The Folly of Pretense Concerning Our Cerebral Injury Children
- The Skeptic’s Guide to Dismissing Public Claims of Illnesses
- Foundation Works on Ethical Skepticism
- Deception Through Abuse of the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy
- Major Flaws Within the Neurodiversity Movement
- When Observation Gives Way to Data-Centric Only Science We All Lose
- When a Social Skeptic Claims to be Evidence Based
- Garbage Skepticism: The Definition
- The Correlation-Causality One-Liner Can Highlight One’s Scientific Illiteracy
- Irish Pennants: The Nature of Flawed versus Sound Definitions
- The Nature of Argument
- The Ethical Skeptic’s Argument Assessment Checklist
- No Promenade in the Savage Dance
- The Kuhn-loss Interplay of Scientific Revolution and Resilience
- The Warning Signs that a Social Epistemology is at Play
- Islam Judaism and Christianity: Time to Remove and Renounce Your Holy Verses Celebrating Violence
- The Celeber Cavilla Fallacy
- Are You a Cynic? You Might be Surprised
- The Best Snake Oil is One You Don’t Even Realize is Being Peddled
- Ethical Skepticism – Part 6 – Say What You Mean and Mean What You Say
- Ten Reasons People No Longer Find Skeptics Credible
- The Seven Steps of How I Recovered my Gut Flora and My Health
- No, I Won’t Back Down
- The Dark Side of SSkepticism: The Richeliean Appeal
- On Being a Young Person Contemplating Joining a Faith
- SSkeptic Weapon Word Top 25
- The Malicious Social Lie called Privilege
- The (Ethical Skeptic) Definition of God
- Deconstructing the Rhetoric around What Constitutes Pseudoscience
- Gaming the Lexicology of Ideas through Neologism
- Popper Demarcation Practice and Malpractice
- The Art of Rhetoric
- How You Persuade Makes All the Difference
- How You Say It Makes All the Difference
- Corber’s Burden of Skepticism and The Omega Hypothesis
- The Burden of Proof (in Gumballs)
- Oh, Those Darned Narcissists
- The Five Types of Null Hypothesis Error
- Wittgenstein Error and Its Faithful Participants
- Rationality is Not What False Skeptics Portray
- The Rising Age of the Cartel: Your Freedoms Were Simply an Experiment
- A Mediocracy in 4.0: Discounting College Acceptance Aptitude Testing is a Grave Error
- Aristotle: Discerning the True Skeptic
- iSkeptic – The Three Laws (and a Fourth)
- Why Sagan is Wrong – The Fake Skeptic Detection Kit
- If the New Religiously Unaffiliated are Not Choosing Atheism, Then Just What are They?
- Diagnostic Habituation Error and Spotting Those Who Fall Its Prey
- Nihilism’s Twisting & Turing Denial of Free Will
- The Deontologically Accurate Basis of the Term: Social Skepticism
- Have You Grown Weary of This? There is a Better Path
- A New Ethic
- Why I Don’t Golf
- The Lifecycle of Fake Skepticism – What’s the Harm?
- The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation
- An Internet Pre-filtered by Authorized Knowledge is a Mistake
- The Misrepresented and So Called ‘War on Science’
- The Ten EnDamnedments – Where the Moral Arc is Headed
- Yes Skeptics Have a PR Problem – Social Skeptics
- When Consensus is Nothing But Pluralistic Ignorance
- The Sorwert Scale of Fake Skepticism
- The Critical Role of Sponsors in the Scientific Method
- An Official ‘Thank You’ to Science Based Medicine
- No You are Not an Atheist, You are a Nihilist
- Methodical Cynicism: The Lyin’tific Method
- Methodical Cynicism: The Presentation
- Your Self is a Mere Illusion of Neurofunction
- Bad Science Being Bad
- The MiHoDeAL Claim to Knowledge
- Ethical Skepticism – Part 4 – The Panoply of Belief
- Latent Demand for Critical Thinking about Skepticism
- The Urgent Need to Reform the ABCD Seed Cartel Science Around Glyphosate
- Hell Hath No Punishment Like Watching Your Children Suffer
- The Magician’s Rush of Fake Skepticism
Site infoThe Ethical Skeptic
Blog at WordPress.com.