Spotting the Humpty Numpty

A Humpty Numpty fixates on the exercise of convincing themselves how smart they are and how well they understand everything around them – inside an incredibly vast array of topics. The goal is to certify how superior they are to a targeted disdained group. But the sad reality is that it is never really about the topic under discussion, the topic is really: them. This is a modern pandemic form of neurosis self-obsession, falsely represented as being a ‘skeptic’ or ‘science enthusiast’.
One should examine them self first, before undertaking the courageous path of science.

When the Numpty is Humping the Elephant

Six Blind Scientists and a Skeptic

The question of Ethical Skepticism is not one of skillfully dismissing arguments and data in order to protect the understanding of the truth; or even what we perceive to be the ‘most likely truth.’ This constitutes simply an exercise in convincing ourselves how smart we are, how well we understand everything around us and how superior we are to a targeted disdained group. This is a modern pandemic form of neurosis. An ethical skeptic eschews such character temptations. I don’t give a damn who is right or wrong, I want to know the truth as best we can get to it.

Truth-accrual embodies in ethical skepticism, such questions as:

1.  If I was wrong, would I even know?

2.  If I was wrong, would this allow for harm to occur or continue?

3.  Can I examine my opponent’s contentions honestly, and state them back to them fairly?

4.  Have I really fairly examined studies which countermand my position? Do I even admit they exist?

5.  Is my ‘rationality’ simply a cover-game to obtain social or professional acceptance?

6.  Have I relied too much on MiHoDeAL claims?

7.  Have I gone into the field and actually looked for myself?

8.  Am I getting my jollies from the argument, and not the alleviation of suffering?

Talebs I Y IIn ethical science, one seeks to give competing explanations a fighting chance until falsified on their own through accrued Popper verity – and NOT by means of how clever we are. After all, for many skeptics, indeed the agenda is the most important thing on their mind. Or in the case of the numptant, the focus is really and finally – never about the topic – it is fixated solely and squarely upon the real agenda: them, their superior ability to be correct-over-you at all times.

False skeptics bear the habit of forming negative impact social intimidation clubs, which seek to issue appeal to authority scientific conclusions, without conducting any scientific method, and then preemptively as if on behalf of science.  Philosophy, including skepticism, cannot step in and act on behalf of science. This is a critical tenet of scientific philosophy. Science is a method, based upon a discipline of thought and evidence, and is never legitimately conducted through armchair or social rationalization under the excuse of ‘critical thinking’. These fakers straw man that every scientific inquiry outside of their club’s ‘judgements’ and authority, constitutes an act of ‘belief’. ‘Pseudosciences’ or ‘extraordinary claims’ they call them. These final conclusive claims of fake skeptics are conducted in lieu of science, mostly adopted in absence of any evidence whatsoever, and are not plied simply upon the upon claims themselves. The ultimate goal is to ply them imperiously upon the topic, the sponsors, the victims, the public, scientists and future budding scientists. This constitutes malice and a corruption of science in the public trust.

They ‘establish’ their method correctness by armchair or social debunking ghosts, homeopathy, Bigfoot and UFO’s and then ply this false-method (humbly deeming it as ‘best evidence’) credibility into directing what everyone else can do with their body, doctor, voting, research, thoughts, nation, rights, political choices, faith choice and their health. This is described no better than by ‘Skeptics in the Pub’, a social skeptic organization in New Zealand.1

They call themselves ‘skeptics’ – preferring the US spelling – and see themselves as watchdogs at the crossroads between science and consumer protection.

They think carefully and logically (i.e. conduct no science) about a subject, and use the best evidence available to reach a judgment. When someone makes an extraordinary claim, they demand it’s backed up with extraordinary evidence. Faith doesn’t cut it. “It sort of feels like ‘skeptics’ is the wrong name for us,” says Wiles. “We’re not skeptics, we’re critical thinkers. When we see a piece of information, we ask, maybe even unintentionally?'” The New Zealand skeptics movement began one February afternoon in 1986, when seven academics from around the country decided to form a club.

The numpty is simply humping the elephant as an exercise in self-gratification. They have no desire to find out what the elephant is at all. Humpty Numpty.


/philosophy : pseudoscience : neurosis : self-obsession/ : 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.

The purpose of this journey of self-examination, the journey of the ethical skeptic – is to seek out and mature with regard to vulnerabilities which serve to harm both self and mankind. The Ten Pillars of Numptancy:

I.             Social Category and Non-Club Hatred
II.            Narcissism and Personal Power
III.           Promotion of Personal Religious Agenda
IV.           Emotional Psychological Damage/Anger
V.            Overcompensation for a Secret Doubt
VI.           Fear of the Unknown
VII.          Effortless Argument Addiction
VIII.         Magician’s Deception Rush
IX.           Need to Belittle Others
X.            Need to Belong/Fear of Club Perception

epoché vanguards gnosis

  1. Jeremy Olds; Stuff Online Magazine: Skeptics look beyond belief, Skeptics in the Pub; 1 Jun 2014;
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments