The Lyin’tific Method: The Ten Commandments of Fake Science
The earmarks of bad science are surreptitious in fabric, not easily discerned by media and the public at large. Sadly, as well they are not often easily discerned by scientists themselves. This is why we have ethical skepticism. It’s purpose is not simply to examine ‘extraordinary claims’, but also to examine those claims which masquerade, hidden in plain sight, as if constituting ordinary boring old ‘settled science’.
Science is a strategy, not a tactic. Beware of those who wear the costume of the tactic, as a pretense of its strategy.
When you do not want the answer to be known, or you desire a specific answer because of social pressure surrounding an issue, or you are tired of irrational hordes babbling some nonsense about your product ‘harming their family members’ *boo-hoo π’. Maybe you want to tout the life extending benefits of drinking alcohol, show how vaccines do not make profits, demonstrate very quickly a pesticide as safe or over-inflate death rates so that you can blame it on people you hate poliitcally – or maybe you are just plain ol’ weary of the burdensome pain-in-the-ass attributes of real science. Wherever your Procrustean aspiration may reside, this is the set of guidebook best practices for you and your science organization. Trendy and proven techniques which will allow your organization to get science back on your side, at a fraction of the cost and in a fraction of the time. π
We have managed to transfer religious belief into gullibility for whatever can masquerade as science.
~ Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Antifragile
When you have become indignant and up to your rational limit over privileged anti-science believers questioning your virtuous authority and endangering your industry profits (pseudo-necessity), well then it is high time to undertake the following procedure of activism. Crank up your science communicators, your skeptics, your critical thinkers and notify them to be at the ready …ready to cut-and-paste plagiarize a whole new set of journalistic propaganda, ‘cuz here comes The Lyin’tific Method!
The Lyin’tific Method: The Ten Commandments of Fake Science
1. Select for Intimidation. Appoint an employee who is under financial or career duress, to create a company formed solely to conduct this study under an appearance of impartiality, to then go back and live again comfortably in their career or retirement. Hand them the problem definition, approach, study methodology and scope. Use lots of Bradley Effect vulnerable interns (as data scientists) and persons trying to gain career exposure and impress. Visibly assail any dissent as being ‘anti-science’, the study lead will quickly grasp the implicit study goal – they will execute all this without question. Demonstrably censure or publicly berate a scientist who dissented on a previous study – allow the entire organization/world to see this. Make him become the hate-symbol for your a priori cause.
2. Ask a Question First. Start by asking a ‘one-and-done’, noncritical path & poorly framed, half-assed, sciencey-sounding question, representative of a very minor portion of the risk domain in question and bearing the most likely chance of obtaining a desired result – without any prior basis of observation, necessity, intelligence from stakeholders nor background research. Stress that the scientific method begins with ‘asking a question’. Avoid peer or public input before and after approval of the study design. Never allow stakeholders at risk to help select or frame the core problem definition, nor identify the data pulled. Never allow a party highly involved in making observations inside the domain (such as a parent, product user or farmer) to have input into the question being asked nor the study design itself. These entities do not understand science and have no business making inputs to PhD’s.
3. Amass the Right Data. Never seek peer input at the beginning of the scientific process (especially on what data to assemble), only the end. Gather a precipitously large amount of ‘reliable’ data, under a Streetlight Effect, which is highly removed from the data’s origin and stripped of any probative context – such as an administrative bureaucracy database. Screen data from sources which introduce ‘unreliable’ inputs (such as may contain eyewitness, probative, falsifying, disadvantageous anecdotal or stakeholder influenced data) in terms of the core question being asked. Gather more data to dilute a threatening signal, less data to enhance a desired one. Number of records pulled is more important than any particular discriminating attribute entailed in the data. The data volume pulled should be perceptibly massive to laymen and the media. Ensure that the reliable source from which you draw data, bears a risk that threatening observations will accidentally not be collected, through reporting, bureaucracy, process or catalog errors. Treat these absences of data as constituting negative observations.
4. Compartmentalize. Address your data analysts and interns as ‘data scientists’ and your scientists who do not understand data analysis at all, as the ‘study leads’. Ensure that those who do not understand the critical nature of the question being asked (the data scientists) are the only ones who can feed study results to people who exclusively do not grasp how to derive those results in the first place (the study leads). Establish a lexicon of buzzwords which allow those who do not fully understand what is going on (pretty much everyone), to survive in the organization. This is laundering information by means of the dichotomy of compartmented intelligence, and it is critical to everyone being deceived. There should not exist at its end, a single party who understands everything which transpired inside the study. This way your study architecture cannot be betrayed by insiders (especially helpful for step 8).
5. Go Meta-Study Early. Never, ever, ever employ study which is deductive in nature, rather employ study which is only mildly and inductively suggestive (so as to avoid future accusations of fraud or liability) – and of such a nature that it cannot be challenged by any form of direct testing mechanism. Meticulously avoid direct observation, randomized controlled trial, retrospective cohort study, case-control study, cross-sectional study, case reports and series, or especially reports or data from any stakeholders at risk. Go meta-study early, and use its reputation as the highest form of study, to declare consensus; especially if the body of industry study from which you draw is immature and as early in the maturation of that research as is possible.Β Imply idempotency in process of assimilation, but let the data scientists interpret other study results as they (we) wish. Allow them freedom in construction of Oversampling adjustment factors. Hide methodology under which your data scientists derived conclusions from tons of combined statistics derived from disparate studies examining different issues, whose authors were not even contacted in order to determine if their study would apply to your statistical database or not.
6. Shift the Playing Field. Conduct a single statistical study which is ostensibly testing all related conjectures and risks in one felled swoop, in a different country or practice domain from that of the stakeholders asking the irritating question to begin with; moreover, with the wrong age group or a less risky subset thereof, cherry sorted for reliability not probative value, or which is inclusion and exclusion biased to obfuscate or enhance an effect. If the anti-science group is whining about something in prevalent use in Canada, then conduct the study in Moldova. Bias the questions asked so as to convert negatives into unknowns or vice versa if a negative outcome is desired. If the data shows a disliked signal in aggregate, then split it up until that disappears – conversely if it shows a signal in component sets, combine the data into one large Yule-Simpson effect. Ensure there exists more confidence in the accuracy of the percentage significance in measure (p-value), than of the accuracy/precision of the contained measures themselves. Be cautious of inversion effect: if your hazardous technology shows that it cures the very thing it is accused of causing – then you have gone too far in your exclusion bias. Add in some of the positive signal cases you originally excluded until the inversion effect disappears.
7. Trashcan Failures to Confirm. Query the data 50 different ways and shades of grey, selecting for the method which tends to produce results which favor your a priori position. Instruct the ‘data scientists’ to throw out all the other data research avenues you took (they don’t care), especially if it could aid in follow-on study which could refute your results. Despite being able to examine the data 1,000 different ways, only examine it in this one way henceforth. Peer review the hell out of any studies which do not produce a desired result. Explain any opposing ideas or studies as being simply a matter of doctors not being trained to recognize things the way your expert data scientists did. If as a result of too much inherent bias in these methods, the data yields an inversion effect – point out the virtuous component implied by your technology – how it will feed the world or cure all diseases, is fighting a species of supremacy or how the ‘technology not only does not cause the malady in question, but we found in this study that it cures it~!’.
8. Prohibit Replication and Follow Up. Craft a study which is very difficult to or cannot be replicated, does not offer any next steps nor serves to open follow-on questions (all legitimate study generates follow-on questions, yours should not), and most importantly, implies that the science is now therefore ‘settled’. Release the ‘data scientists’ back to their native career domains so that they cannot be easily questioned in the future.Β Intimidate organizations from continuing your work in any form, or from using the data you have assembled. Never find anything novel (other than a slight surprise over how unexpectedly good you found your product to be), as this might imply that you did not know the answers all along. Never base consensus upon deduction of alternatives, rather upon how many science communicators you can have back your message publicly. Make your data proprietary. View science details as an activity of relative privation, not any business of the public.
9. Extrapolate and Parrot/Conceal the Analysis. Publish wildly exaggerated & comprehensive claims to falsification of an entire array of ideas and precautionary diligence, extrapolated from your single questionable and inductive statistical method (panduction). Publish the study bearing a title which screams “High risk technology does not cause (a whole spectrum of maladies) whatsoever” – do not capitalize the title as that will appear more journaly and sciencey and edgy and rebellious and reserved and professorial. Then repeat exactly this extraordinarily broad-scope and highly scientific syllogism twice in the study abstract, first in baseless declarative form and finally in shocked revelatory and conclusive form, as if there was some doubt about the outcome of the effort (ahem…). Never mind that simply repeating the title of the study twice, as constituting the entire abstract is piss poor protocol – no one will care. Denialists of such strong statements of science will find it very difficult to gain any voice thereafter. Task science journalists to craft 39 ‘research articles’ derived from your one-and-done study; deem that now 40 studies. Place the 40 ‘studies’, both pdf and charts (but not any data), behind a registration approval and $40-per-study paywall. Do this over and over until you have achieved a number of studies and research articles which might fancifully be round-able up to ‘1,000’ (say 450 or so ~ see reason below). Declare Consensus.
10. Enlist Aid of SSkeptics and Science Communicators. Enlist the services of a public promotion for-hire gang, to push-infiltrate your study into society and media, to virtue signal about your agenda and attack those (especially the careers of wayward scientists) who dissent.Β Have members make final declarative claims in one liner form “A thousand studies show that high risk technology does not cause anything!” ~ a claim which they could only make if someone had actually paid the $40,000 necessary in actually accessing the ‘thousand studies’. That way the general public cannot possibly be educated in any sufficient fashion necessary to refute the blanket apothegm. Have them demand final proof as the only standard for dissent. This is important: make sure the gang is disconnected from your organization (no liability imparted from these exaggerated claims nor any inchoate suggested dark activities *wink wink), and moreover, who are motivated by some social virtue cause such that they are stupid enough that you do not actually have to pay them.
The organizations who manage to pull this feat off, have simultaneously claimed completed science in a single half-assed study, contended consensus, energized their sycophancy and exonerated themselves from future liability – all in one study. To the media, this might look like science. But to a life-long researcher, it is simply a big masquerade. It is pseudo-science in the least; and at its worst constitutes criminal felony and assault against humanity. It is malice and oppression, in legal terms (see Dewayne Johnson vs Monsanto Company)
The discerning ethical skeptic bears this in mind and uses this understanding to discern the sincere from the poser, and real groundbreaking study from commonplace surreptitiously bad science.
epochΓ© vanguards gnosis
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
How to MLA cite this blog post =>
The Ethical Skeptic, βThe Lyin’tific Method: The Ten Commandments of Fake Scienceβ The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 3 Sep 2018; Web, https://wp.me/p17q0e-8f1
Related
September 3, 2018 - Posted by The Ethical Skeptic | Agenda Propaganda, Institutional Mandates, Social Disdain | fake science, lyintific method
“Refreshing to new and weary seekers of truth alike. If you claim to be a skeptic and have not read The Ethical Skeptic, you risk echochamber irrelevancy.” -TRB
“I suspect that I possess neither the lifetime nor competencies to grasp all that is said therein; nevertheless inside I also suspect greatness.” -Tech Journalist
“An extraordinary work. Masterpiece.” -LS
“Essential for any philosophy of science course. The pageantry of pseudo-skepticism is abused to belie its truly corrupt core. What we lacked are the frameworks necessary in pinpointing the very flaws and deceptions many of us have sensed, but have been unable to articulate. That is, until now.” -ADR
“Sir, 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
“This site/blog/whatever is messing with my mind and I love it.” -SR
“I love that blog by The Ethical Skeptic. It punches effectively and by the end I was cheering!” -PhD Physicist
“I am a military intelligence instructor. Honestly, your knowledge structure of deception ought to be standard teaching inside graduate level US military intelligence courses. Do you mind if I use your material to do so?” -JWH
“I was asked by a colleague, just whom I regarded to be a signature philosopher of our time, as viewed say a century into the future; to which I responded, ‘I don’t even know his name, other than ethical skeptic’.” -JP
“[One of the] best non Cathedral empiricists outside Nassim Taleb.” -BH
There exists a pro-science, educated and rational movement of conscience, on the part of people just like you and me. Professionals who apply skepticism daily in their STEMM disciplines; who nonetheless are raising a warning flag of concern. Welcome to my blog. Within its pages, I hope to illustrate 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 laments the imprisonment of science by control-minded special interests and bullying dogmatic social epistemologists. As you survey my blog, hopefully you will encounter ideas you’ve never personally considered before. Indeed, its mission is to foster foremost a discerning perspective for us all on the Cabal of pretenders who abuse and seek control in the name science. Science based upon a flawed philosophy called social skepticism.
What is Ethical Skepticism?
A series in parts, which defines the philosophy, tenets and structure of Ethical Skepticism
.
The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation
A compendium of over 3000 fallacies, errors and methods of corrupted thinking commonly employed to obfuscate and deceive
.
The Appeal to Skepticism Fallacy
The formal and informal fallacy of deceptively promoting one’s self and ideals through pretense of skepticism
.
The Real Ockham’s Razor
It is plurality, and not the simplest explanation, which bears merit in professional research and the actual scientific method
.
Sol-Nihilism and The Ten Endamnedments
The compulsory set of core religious beliefs misrepresented as skepticism, atheism, free thinking and science
Related
Top Posts & Pages
- Tyflocracy: The New Art of Oppressive Governance
- The Peculiar Schema of DNA Codon's Second Letter
- The Fatuous Errand of the Fact Checker
- About this Blog
- The Definitive Guide to Ethical Skeptic's (TES/ES) Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (2019) Analysis
- A New Ethic
- Embargo of The Necessary Alternative is Not Science
- Caesar's Wife Must be Above Suspicion
- The Climate Change Alternative We Ignore (to Our Peril)
- What is Social Skepticism?
-
Recent Posts
- The Peculiar Schema of DNA Codon’s Second Letter
- The Five Species of Syndicate and Their Dissent
- The Fatuous Errand of the Fact Checker
- For Me to Win You Must Lose Everything
- The Pitfalls of Electric Vehicles as Climate Change Panacea
- Caesar’s Wife Must be Above Suspicion
- How to Detect an Evil Person
- The Definitive Guide to Ethical Skeptic’s (TES/ES) Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (2019) Analysis
- Post Stockholm Syndrome
- The Climate Change Alternative We Ignore (to Our Peril)
- Incidente en La Islote Bermeja
- Oh the Quackery!
- The Distinction Between Bias and Agency
- Unethical Employment of Intellectual Property
- Carl Sagan was Just Dead Wrong
- The Future of Ethical Markets
- EpochΓ© Vanguards Gnosis
- How to Argue Like a Child
- Inflection Point Theory and the Dynamic of The Cheat
- The Art of Knowing Nothing
- The Scientific Method
- Of Pretend Sleep and Authentic Dreams
- The Earth-Lunar Lagrange 1 Orbital Rapid Response Array (ELORA)
- Latest Trends in Acceptance of UFO’s – Not Good News for Fake Skeptics
- A Statistical Profiling of Celebrity Wannabe ‘Scientific Skeptics’
- The Dual-Burden Model of Inferential Ethics
- The Demarcation of Skepticism
- Epistemological Domain and Objective Risk Strategy
- Inference of Necessity – Confirmation vs Linear Affirmation
- The Plural of Anecdote is Data
- A Poem of Learning
- Torfuscation – Gaming Study Design to Effect an Outcome
- The Roger Principle
- How and Why We Know What We Know
- What Happens After?
- Nelsonian Inference and Cultivated Ignorance
- The Map of Inference
- Adoy’s Principle – or the Principle of the House Hedge
- Rumors of Philosophy’s Demise are Greatly Exaggerated
- Heteroduction – When Classic Inference Proves Unsound
- Distinguishing Scientific from Academic Study
- Six Vaccinial Generation Trends Fueled by Concealed Profits
- The Hermit of Nosnix Who Couldn’t be Fooled
- The Elements of Hypothesis
- Skeptics Need You – But You Don’t Need Them
- The Apothegm Makes the Poison
- Embargo of The Necessary Alternative is Not Science
- The Essential Mind of the Religious Pitch
- The Contrathetic Impasse – Key Sign of Heavy-Handed Agency at Play
- Exotic Nature of FRB 121102 Burst Congeries
- The Spectrum of Evidence Manipulation
- Authority Credulity: Antipode to Conspiracy Theory – But Even Worse
- Meta-Ethical Praxis of Science
- Reduction: A Bias for Understanding
- The Fermi Paradox is Babysitting Rubbish
- Ten Common Misconceptions About Science
- The Lyin’tific Method: The Ten Commandments of Fake Science
- Panduction: The Invalid Form of Inference
- Malice and Oppression in the Name of Skepticism and Science
- EpochΓ© and The Handedness of Information
- Ketosis Lab Notes – Mitochondrial Suppression Disorder
- Quashing Study of Ancient Artifacts Violates a Basic Human Right
- Abuse of the Ad Hoc ‘Fallacy’
- Interrogative Biasing: Asking the Wrong Question in Order to Get the Right Answer
- No You Are Not a Critical Thinker
- When Skepticism is a Symptom of Cognitive Impairment
- Parents’ Basement Skepticism
- No You Are Not a Scientist
- The Nature of Elegance
- Ignosticism
- When Simple is Just Simply Wrong
- Singularity Covenant – The Brane and The Bull
- Plural Arguing – I am Not Convinced That Even You Believe You
- Not So Fast: Anatomy of a Skeptic Hack Job
- The Riddle of Skepticism
- Critical Attributes Which Distinguish the Scientific Method
- It Does Not Take a Conspiracy
- The Role of Critical Path in Logic, Systems and Science
- A Handy Checklist for Distinguishing Propaganda from Actual Science
- The Opposite of Skeptic: Apparatchik
- The Dark Side of Doubt
- Vaccinials – The Betrayed Generation of Americans
- ‘Anecdote’ – The Cry of the Pseudo-Skeptic
- 42 Critical Knowledge/Experience Qualifications of a Philosopher β Ancient or Modern
- The Sophistry Fallacy
- The Ten Endamnedments of Sol-Nihilism
- Qualifying Theory and Pseudo-Theory
- Calorie-Based Diet Pseudo Science Proves False
- The New Debunker: Pseudo-Skeptic Sleuth
- The Appeal to Fallacy
- The Eagle, the Ape, the Horse and the Lion
- Denial and Pseudo-Skepticism are Not the Same Thing
- Intuitionism: Inference versus Impulse
- The Three Types of Reason
- Tyflocracy: The New Art of Oppressive Governance
- Ethical Skepticism – Part 9 – Skeptive Dissonance
- Sign Posts on The Road Less Traveled By
- Ten Reasons People No Longer Find Skeptics Credible
- Formal vs Informal Fallacy and Their Abuse
- Proof Gaming
- Discerning Sound from Questionable Science Publication
- The Tower of Wrong: The Art of Professional Lying
- 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 Nine 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: Where we Send our Vaccinial Generation to Forget They Even Exist
- 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 ‘Science 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
- 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
- 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?
- An Internet Pre-filtered by Authorized Knowledge is a Mistake
- The Misrepresented and So Called ‘War on Science’
- 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
- 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
- The Magician’s Rush of Fake Skepticism
- Ethical Skepticism – Part 2 – The Riddle of Skepticism
- The Four Indicators of Personal Ethical Objectivity
- How Social Skepticism Obviates the Scientific Method
- Contrasting the USFDA and Social Skepticism Definitions of ‘Homeopathy’
- The Hypocrisy of the Socialist Anthropogenic Global Warming Agenda
- The Ethical Skeptic Statement of Faith
- Why Atheism is Not a Religion
- Margold’s Law and The Ethics of Skeptics
- How to Spot a Fake Skeptic
- Endocrine-Immune-Biome Disruption and the Exorbitant Cost of Social Skepticism Induced Bliss
- How to Tell When a SSkeptic is Lying
- Exploiting Our Elitist Delusion Over Procedural Acumen
- When SSkeptics Block Science the Public Must Force Change Anyway
- Essential Eyewitness Testimony is Highly Reliable Despite What SSkeptics Claim
- Skeptical Thinking does not Constitute Expert Opinion
- The Ten Pillars
- Sol-Nihilism
- The Futility of the Bill Nye-Ken Ham Debate on Creationism
- The Corrupt Oligarchy of Social Skepticism
- Nihilism: Mandatory Pseudo Scientific Naturalism
- The Appeal to Skepticism Fallacy
- The Bookend Lies of Institutional Health
- Ethical Skepticism – Part 3 – The Knowledge Development Process
- The Scientific Method is Not Simply The Experimental Method
- Promotification Pseudoscience
- What is the Difference Between Ethical and Social Skepticism?
- Ethical Skepticism – Part I – The Octavus Thesauri and What it Means to Be an Ethical Skeptic
- The False Dichotomy of Bookend Lies
- What is Pseudoscience?
- The Binding Role of the Lie of Allegiance
- The Habits of an Institutional Liar
- The Real Cost of SSkepticism’s Science Entitled Medicine
- Anatomy of a Media Hack Job
- Ethical Skepticism – Part 5 – The Real Ockham’s Razor
- Real Scientists Disagree with SSkeptics About World’s Top Concerns for the Future
- The Nine Principles – MIT
- The Art of the Hoax
- Denial of Discovery Science
- The JREF Million Dollar Challenge was His Greatest Magic Trick of All Time
- Entitlement and College Cost Bubble
- The Penultimate Set Fallacy
- Toxic Diet Pushes US to Higher Diet Related Mortality Rate than Peer Countries
- Faith is Not Pseudoscience
- The Culture of Cheating
- Cultivation of Ignorance
- Critical Thinking – The False Definition
- What is Social Skepticism?
- What Constitutes a Religion?
- Ethical Skepticism: Value
- Ethical Skepticism: Clarity
- Observation vs Claim Blurring
- Fake-Hoax Obfuscation
- What a Fool Believes He Sees
- Leveraging the Unknown
- Critical Blindness
- Fact/Ambiguity Dipoles
- The Pseudoscientific DRiP Method
- Anti-Homeopathy Propaganda Proves False
- Kuhn Denialism
- Pork-Barreling/Associative Condemnation/Stooge Posing Fallacies
- The Scientific Method and Pseudo-PseudoScience
- The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation
- The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation: Misrepresentation through Authority
- The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation: Misrepresentation of Self
- The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation: Mischaracterization of Groups
- The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation: Misrepresentation by Assumption
- The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation: Misrepresentation by Argument
- The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation: Misrepresentation of Science
- The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation: Misrepresentation through Locution or Semantics
- The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation: Mischaracterization of Opponents
- The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation: Misrepresentation of Evidence or Data
- The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation: Misrepresentation by Bias or Method
- Title 17 U.S.C. Β§ 107 “Fair Use” Act
Follow me on Twitter
My TweetsBlog Admin
Tags
Atheism celebrity skeptics deception define ethical skepticism ethical skepticism fake skepticism fake skeptics false skepticism food fraud Nihilism novella Ockham's Razor oligarchy pathology pathos Pseudoscience religion sceptic science Scientific Method skeptic skeptic forum skepticism skeptics socialism social skepticism the skeptic The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation What is Ethical Skepticism