The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Agency of Pseudo-Skepticism & Cultivated Ignorance

About this Blog

It was in the midst of just such a pretense of sleep, that perchance I did dream in ironic authenticity.
Thoughts unrelenting – phantoms which eventually materialized into a new discipline called ethical skepticism.

Where one is corrupt in their skepticism, there also will they be corrupt in their heart.

Of Pretend Sleep and Authentic Dreams

It is the intent of this author and purpose of this blog to propose afresh from its beginning, a genuine problem in philosophy. A problem of method-induced creeping ignorance, wrought in the name of science. A Tadpole or boot trainee is never considered a fully skilled soldier, until he or she first knows how not to endanger or abuse others with their weapon. In similar critical nature, until one understands how a philosophical definition or principle can be manipulated for ill intent, one has not really learned it. Such is the nature of ethical skepticism; an applied ability to spot the condition wherein skepticism is employed with the specific goal of cultivating ignorance inside society. In order for us to hone our skills at spotting scientific deception through means of this false skepticism however, it becomes necessary that one approach afresh, many core ideas of philosophy.

Philosophy is a tar baby as well; for in the moment you eschew or jeer philosophy, unfortunately you have pretended to the role of philosopher. Given all this, for me the question arises, ‘then why not do philosophy well?’ While the philosopher runs the risk of dealing in sophistry within such a blog effort as The Ethical Skeptic, and accordingly I examine my own steps with a skeptic’s eye for this misrepresentation by means of locution; nonetheless, I feel it to be of greater importance to foster public understanding of our errant versions of skepticism than retreat into a presumed parsimony. A personal regard of such urgency that I hold this clarity as paramount over the red-herring effect that events of the day or persons seeking more than their 15 minutes of fame might serve to impart. So for myself, becoming a philosopher therefore is a must. The fundamental bad philosophies decried in this work, the habits of Bernaysian belief engineering, methodical cynicism and pseudo-skepticism, have served to underpin the origin of much conflict, ignorance and suffering on the part of greater mankind. What we do know is used to control us, while what we do not know serves to harm us. Skepticism is the process of becoming dissatisfied with this state of affairs.

Ethical skepticism in reality is nothing more than plain ol’ skepticism.
The modifier is employed as an artifice in order to highlight our current
syndicated form of pop-skepticism – abused to control the direction of science and governance.
It is not a claim to virtue, personal or otherwise, as ethics are antipodal to virtue signaling.

Many find this site to constitute a hard read. Technical and legal writing constitute a significant portion of my trade/businesses. I can often be found crafting agreements or specifications, documents which are by their intent precise and effective; not inane prose by any stretch. One should not attempt to casually speed-read or glean through this material and then pretend that their shortfall in mental effort now somehow translates into my responsibility. Moreover, such austerity and precision of language is purposed. The Ethical Skeptic is written so as to filter out the average low-bandwidth troll or subscriber to Skeptical Inquirer; those who fell prey to their doctrines, precisely because they could not fathom philosophical rigor in the first place. This material, while not purposefully abstruse, is also not going to be simply (read that as ‘equivocally’) worded, nor compromised in such a way as to pretense talking down to another level. If you cannot comprehend this material, then neither are you developmentally ready to receive its tenets. A skilled reading acumen however, may discern the ode concealed within its passages. One can find a cache of blithering common sense straw man one-liners some other place. On average I invest days or weeks of actual research and thought into the meta-ethics woven inside my blog posts. When you observe a social skeptic weekly rambling off the same tired list of century-old conclusions regarding an array of subjects inside of which they could not possibly hold necessary expertise – this, take as an indication of the level of effort contribution as well as their being compensated in some form for their fallacy-strewn journalism.

I don’t write for other writers, develop philosophy for philosophers, nor exercise skepticism to entertain skeptics. I apply these tools as part of a satisfying life composition.

Moreover, this blog is written for those with ‘soul in the game’; they who bear the fortitude to suffer, appreciate and comprehend the philosophical precision requisite inside understanding. Stamina driven forth by a passion in searching for Karl Popper’s proverbial ‘treasure buried underneath philosophy’s heap of ruins’. This site contains a graduate level of philosophy and beyond; featuring an ethic which venerates heroes based on their ideas and not their antiquity nor academic repetition. It is said that knowledge may be obtained through study, yet wisdom is attained through arduous and complete life. Beware of those who suggest they obtained wisdom from study. Accordingly, you will notice herein a relative dearth of respect for ancient Greek and Christian Reformation philosophers; those attempting to prove or disprove God through means of clever casuistry. Such work is foolishness; mere abuse of antiquity and icon as surreptitious appeal to authority. If the essential depth of your philosophy is derived from academic aperçu on Seneca, Plato or Nietzsche, and not through the robust struggle of your own life – let’s be clear, you are pretending. Instead, I have crafted this site for those who have encountered the wall of dissatisfaction in their maturation as a doctor of philosophy – a dissonance which indistinctly broods inside the minds of captive, oppressed and real, scientists. Those who are walking a life path of gaining wisdom.

If a man’s thoughts are to have truth and life in them, they must, after all, be his own fundamental thoughts; for these are the only ones that he can fully and wholly understand. . . . a man who thinks for himself can easily be distinguished from the book-philosopher by the very way in which he talks, by his marked earnestness, and the originality, directness, and personal conviction that stamp all his thoughts and expressions. The book-philosopher, on the other hand, lets it be seen that everything he has is second-hand.  

~ Arthur Schopenhauer, “On Thinking for Yourself” (1851)

There are three types of person. Those who create great ideas, those who pan them, and those who take the credit for them. I strive always to be, and have always played role as, the former. Therein, I have found that the latter will most often secretly reward an ability to create value through ideas; while at the same time ignoring the midmost: the doubter, debunker and cynic. These characters reside in a perpetual state of resentment towards creatively intelligent minds, accentuated by a ripe frustration over the lack of recognition their ‘critical thinking skills’ beget. Their distress mandates the formation of skeptic clubs which offer the means of celebrity and self aggrandizement they so desperately crave. Never fathoming that their ilk come at a dime-a-dozen. Therefore, take this as a hint about skepticism as well. It is a discipline of value creation, and not one of critique.

What I have to say in this blog therefore constitutes a genuinely novel, non-obvious to the artisan, teachable and isolate problem of philosophy, developed from mankind’s prior art inside the subject. Five of the nine critical factors that make for great new philosophy. I will also strive to make this work cogent, clarifying, useful and agenda free as much as I can (the other four critical factors). Nonetheless, what I have to say in this blog is also quietly on the minds of curious citizen and scientist alike. Good minded people who grapple with an inner dissonance. A difficulty explaining just why we possess discomfort with the bien pensant who clamor to dominate and promote a specific set of grand conclusions; and while possessing scant experience or credential, claim as well to speak on behalf of science. Those pretending to be asleep – among whom we formerly numbered our membership. We who are awakened by such dreams in authenticity instinctively grasp this; however, have nonetheless found frustration in articulating its core dissonance. Until now. And in this regard, I seek to disambiguate ethical skepticism from its misrepresented skeptical straw man. In this regard as well, I am not the only ethical skeptic.


There is a quiet, educated, rational and determined movement afoot. It stems from this dissonance. It is not a movement fomented by pseudo scientists nor religious minded persons; rather, it is a movement of conscience, on the part of people just like me. Science and Engineering professionals who, while persons who apply skepticism daily in their STEM professions, are raising the warning flag of concern that some of our peers have begun to stray off course.  They, along with specific groups of overzealous and immature laymen, have been misdirected by oligarch minded groups into invalid avenues of institutional, ends-driven control. At some point along the line, the sincere skepticism movement, featuring the cogent and persuasive arguments of leaders like Christopher Hitchens and Carl Sagan, was hi-jacked by the corporate socialist West, who found a new use for this pit-bull terrier group – a group which they could employ to do harm, yet impart no liability risk to their organizations in the process. A new best practice resulting from the bitter lessons they learned in the 1960’s and 70’s concerning their malicious advocacy conduct. They put ‘skepticism’ to work to shield from accountability, pharmaceutical/media/healthcare/agri/food companies, oligarch industries, political parties and academics seeking social and political power. The bandwagon was led astray by vigilante social activists, posing as science, promoting specific social epistemologies, a failed form of socio-economics, the rule of elitist neo-fascism, and a new unacknowledged religion, all falsely in the name of science. In the midst of observing this change, as a sincere skeptic I began to struggle with a creeping and irresistible discomfort with where the movement was headed.

It is not enough to be intelligent, skeptical and bear good intentions.
One must study the methods of agency and deception, especially of self.

The purpose of this blog is not to side with any particular argument inside a valid topic of pluralistic contention. Rather its purpose is to defend plurality when it exists, along with the integrity of the knowledge development process; to highlight preemptive efforts and methods employed in blocking science on the part of this invalid form of skepticism.  The purpose of this blog is to elicit light into the unethical habits of this group of false skeptics, and to serve as a resource for its victims. Do I believe in Homeopathy, Bigfoot, UFO’s and ghosts; the ridiculous litmus tests of the Social Skepticism movement?  No.  I do not hold beliefs around these topics, in contrast to those who partake of fake skepticism. There exists plenty of bunk inside them, and appropriately there are plenty of people around who hold those subjects accountable.  Yet who holds Social Skepticism accountable? They possess no mechanisms of peer review nor accountability, which could preclude their being abused as a tool by control-minded influences. They bully the public through media ridicule, character defamation, intimidation, social pressure and gleefully enacted ill behavior to such an extent that scientists and media will only speak against the movement in private. Even the things they are correct on, simply serve as virtue signaling opportunities. They could care less about the subjects themselves. Their target is not any quest for truth. The target is you.

While I am an upstanding and conscientious person in my private and professional life, one should not infer from the term ‘ethical skepticism’ a personal boast of morality (normative ethics), as those who are ignorant of graduate level philosophy are prone to accuse. It is the very nature of ethics to eschew the adorning of virtue and morality to begin with; as such costume is largely adopted as means of deception. Rather one should comprehend ethical skepticism as an intellectual and practical allegiance to an actual long held standard of science. It is a post-modern conscientious philosophical connecting of meta-physical arguments to their appropriately impacted epistemology (in academic-speak). After all, this is what ‘ethics’ means, the decision theory behind adherence to standing professional standards of practice. Ethical skepticism is a meta-ethical philosophy therefore, which serves specific benevolent/knowledge goals and results in specific modifications to some of our applied ethics (pseudo-skepticism, institutional propaganda and cultivated ignorance). Therefore, it will naturally oppose agency, the antithesis of this process. It is the job of philosophy therefore, to intervene and hold science accountable – not that one is usurping nor pretending to the role of science – rather re-establishing its anchor in humanity.

Philosophy is not dead.

We may suffer from a plurality of dilettante who conflate an affinity for arguing, religious doctrines or memorization of Kant, Plato and Hume as constituting an expedient corner on wisdom. However, we cannot afford to allow the philosophy underlying science, skepticism, to be corrupted in such fashion that its wisdom is eclipsed by shallow or academic ego – adrift and impotent inside its charter of holding science accountable.

This new dawn of artificial intelligence, genetic technology, corporate power and social monitoring mandates that our philosopher be better equipped. Bearing prerequisite skills in science, business and government; experience in human nature and deception, and finally possessing an accrued and heartfelt love for humanity – traits which abet and check science along its course in serving us all, and prohibit its ethical neutrality from warping it into mankind’s greatest enemy.

Who is The Ethical Skeptic?

The context of the moniker I use or the general practitioner descriptive in the form ‘ethical skeptic’, are set in the impersonal; as in the case of The American Practical Navigator or The Creative Architect for instance. Ethics discipline and virtue signaling are two differing things. Ethics are a generic call back to a standard and stakeholder-beneficial praxis, while virtue is an individual claim to exceed someone else’s standard. Appealing to organized bank robbers to cease robbing banks, is not a form of virtue signaling. Such appeal is a right we have and a duty we hold.

In this same regard, the context of ethics employed in this blog is deontological in as far as the adherence to standards of protocol, such as the real and complete scientific method, are regarded as both sufficient and necessary to direct our knowledge development actions. An idempotent neutral practice, characterized by an aversion to tampering with observations and data in favor of one’s agency. Yet, still consequentialist from the perspective that the outcomes of value, clarity and the alleviation of risk and suffering manifest as the signature handiwork of those who practice such ethics. In my profession and research skepticism is the substrate of science, and I feel it is abused when applied in lieu of science by agenda-schooled journalists, stage magicians, propaganda bloggers, psychologists and party/social activists. The bank robbers.

Just to clarify my positions, I am not a 9/11 truther, flat-Earther nor Moon landing ‘skeptic’. These critical thinking clubs all resulted ironically from media celebrities teaching weaponized skepticism in the first place. I am an evolutionist and an ignostic atheist. I side with science inside the matters of climate change, speciation and the origins of the universe as we understand them. I am pro-transgenetic technology and pro-vaccine – I have recommended specific vaccine programs as a critical step in some of my national health strategies for developing nations. I have campaigned hard, and met face to face with the heads of state, in order to promote acceptance of GMO agricultural foods from our country into several G8 nations which refuse them. But this does not mean that I am therefore now bound to gullibly accept excessive and untested immune activation in infants or every single gene splice desired by corporations benefiting from cosmetics, monopoly or convenience. Especially if we decide that diligent science and safety study are unnecessary because such caution serves to impede our virtuous and expedient profit. I have witnessed first hand the damaging impact by those who employ the permissive identities of virtue and science to enact all manner of greed, harm and malevolent decisions on all our behalf. Science is not a license for a few oligarch-socialism seekers to do whatever they want to the public. Inside a free nation, science must ever operate inside the public trust. Moreover, this applies to skepticism as well. I am a person who employs true skepticism, and refuses to adopt the mandatory religion, politics and economic views which characterize the 768 specific conclusions of surety, foisted as settled science on the part of Social Skepticism. I am a forthright critic of this pseudoscientific, malevolent and power hungry movement.

The promotion of self is pivotal inside any public false claim to represent science. I am not here to participate in such an obsession. For reasons which serve proposing a genuine problem in philosophy therefore, you will find that within this blog I remain primarily focused upon ideas, and not necessarily on the more alluring but distracting milieu around events, popular controversies or persons. That set of distracting personages includes myself; hence my choice of anonymity. Standing inside the protection of the mob and holding a whip of social excoriation is never an act of courage, rather an act of cowardice and self aggrandizement. Such is the habit of the celebrity-seeking skeptic. Moreover, while I rely heavily upon the excellent work inside the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ( as well as foundational philosophers such as Wittgenstein and Popper, along with modern documentarians Rosen, Nozick and Reese; nonetheless the super-majority of the thoughts presented herein are original thoughts and works of my own. They seek to place risk in epistemological conjecture; to challenge the status quo. These constructs constitute ideas derived over three decades of hard-earned and deep philosophy-altering global life exposure. A life framed in courage. You will find that I assemble these foundational principles and life experiences, then move a step further by leveraging or developing them into maturity with regard to understanding errant versus valid skepticism.

Constituting more than simply armchair weltanschauung, ethical skepticism is something I have learned though this arduous and world-exposed professional experience base. ‘Ethical skepticism’ in reality is nothing more than plain ol’ skepticism. The modifier is employed as an artifice in order to distinguish and spotlight our current pathological form of skepticism exploited to control the direction of science and governance. It is not a claim to virtue, personal or otherwise, as ethics are the opposite of virtue. The corrupted methods of Social Skepticism relegate its victims (all of us) to a purposeful state of ignorance on many subjects. A poverty of intelligence awash in a sea of correctness, seeking to maroon any idea which could even remotely threaten the awesome cosmology, hatred and politics of their insistence.

Who is The Ethical Skeptic? No one of consequence. I believe that a person should be engaged for the quality of their thinking, and for their positive impact upon the world that they find within their reach; not by their titles, curriculum vitae, publications and awards. Nonetheless, for those who insist that such things embody a person’s worthiness, I work professionally in engineering and science on a daily basis. While my exposure to life, scientific philosophy, research, and solving complex challenges is high, I do not claim to be a scientist myself. Rather, I am a graduate degreed science and engineering professional.

It is not that smart people believe weird things, but rather what I observe among scientists of the highest caliber acumen: they are wise in their application of intellectual integrity. At some point inside a doctrinal array of conclusive arguments, the ethical mind must eventually broach dissent, and question the nature of linear thinking certainty inside asymmetric, partially understood systems. Mindlessly falling prey to a bandwagon effect does not qualify one as rational nor as a critical thinker. You cannot justify the corruption of mind with a series of memorized one-liners. As my favorite professor in Standard Model particle physics used to say, “It is not simply the correctness of your answer I want you to express, rather demonstrate the rigor and quality of your thinking.” The rigor and quality of our thinking has been sacrificed at the alter of authorized correctness masquerading as science.

Never use skepticism as an excuse to dissuade anyone’s life from expressing its full extraordinary potential, especially your own.


Which Posts Should I Read First?

Ethical Skepticism – Part 9 – Skeptive Dissonance

The heart which is only focused upon itself, eventually tires of such a subject. There exists a discomfort one experiences in overcoming anosognosia. This is considered the first step in the journey of ethical skepticism.

Ethical Skepticism – Part 5 – Ethical Skepticism and The Real Ockham’s Razor

The actual role of Ockham’s Razor, the real scientific principle, is to begin the scientific method, not complete it in one felled swoop. Rational thinking under Ockham’s Razor (i.e. Parsimony) is the demonstrated ability to handle plurality of argument with integrity. The ability to wield great ideas and not drop them through incompetence.

The Appeal to Skepticism Fallacy

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’ is not simply inherently flawed as an argument, but deleterious and ignorance-promoting as a method.

The Tower of Wrong: The Art of Professional Lying

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’ is not simply inherently flawed as an argument, but deleterious and ignorance-promoting as a method. This as a precis to the full inventory of tactics in deception:

The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation

A compendium of fallacy and corrupted thought commonly employed inside Social Skepticism

Nurturing the New Mind: The Disruptive Nature of Ethics

It is the legitimate role of the New Mind to not simply detect lies, but moreover to dethrone those entities which pretend to the role of God. An ethical skeptic does not possess all knowledge and wisdom. However, he can learn to spot a monkey attempting to intimidate others with a gas can.

Ethical Skepticism – Part 2 – The Riddle of Skepticism

Explained how Ethical Skepticism is a clarity and value oriented assemblage of the best of Philosophical, Empirical and Cartesian Skepticism developed in side a Kuhn Theory of Revolution context, focused on employment of the entire scientific method, not simply the experimental method. It is a discipline of value creation, much more than it is one of critique.


Is Ethical Skepticism Really Different?

Do you ever get a sick feeling after reading a typical ‘skeptic’ article or blog? Like you have to go take a shower to wash off all the false intelligentsia, politics, god-hatred, arrogance and seething disdain for people who are not acceptable to them? I do all the time. Yet I trudge through their false science drivel for one reason – to help inform others as to the subtle nature of distinction between real skepticism and their form of snake oil agenda promotion.

Many years ago I advised a group seeking government approval of a certain controversial technology. I was hired to advise them on process; the process of seeking legislative approval for the broad scale application of that technology. I let them know up front that I would certainly advise them on correct process, but this did not mean that I could vouch for the scientific accuracy of the claims of both their large corporation, nor those in opposition to their technology. I would remain in a skeptically neutral state – solely and earnestly desiring the scientific research to continue on the subject, and the members of that community to have their say, not just me. We enlisted the aide of a certain member of that legislature to help us negotiate the wickets of the legislative process. He was a champion for our representation before the committee, passionately standing in session advocating the review of the technology in question, and working alongside both myself and the large company liaisons to gain admission to a specific legislative floor hearing. When the question arose as to the validity of the hearing, this member voted ‘Yes’ before the legislative committee.  Many members followed him. The hearing was approved. My client was very pleased.

When the day came to vote on jurisdictional application of the technology, when the actual vote was to be had, our champion member of the legislature, now no longer representing process, rather representing the voice of his constituents, voted against approval of the technology.  My clients were aghast at the apparent betrayal. But as a post graduate trained philosopher, I understood that what the legislative body member had done, was in fact an ethical act. He fought for the right of that technology to present its case, for the right of its sponsors to appeal for more research and for their day in the ‘court of science’ if you will.  He fought for this right despite the fact that he also, ethically had not come to the conclusion that the technology was safe for broad scale application just yet.

The legislative member was not anti-technology, he was not duplicitous, and he did not betray the technology sponsor. He simply from a basis of sound character, neutrally allowed the technology its day before the legislative hearing. He wanted the pluralistic argument to have its day in the court of legislative review, despite his current questions about the technology.  He was an ethical skeptic.

Today’s skeptics seek to block the legislative hearing of matters which are petitioning for a state of Ockham’s Razor ‘plurality;’ the fairness under which they can obtain their day in the sunshine in the legislative court of science. Today’s skeptics are the unethical members of legislature, not even elected – rather self appointed, who are so threatened by the matter of potential approval, that they will seek any means, dark, social, dirty or misleading, in order to block ethical matters of scientific legislative process. This in an effort to enforce their religious views on society, through a cleverly interwoven abrogation of science and method. To steal the mantle of responsibility out of the hands of science, and rest it squarely into their prejudiced hands, circumventing the processes of responsible science, which is the property of us all. To intimidate the actual legislative members and threaten them with professional death if they speak up.

This is how corruption works in third world, suffering nations.

The social skeptic is a catalyseur. A third party exploitation specialist abetting conflict between the public and science. They do not seek truth in any specific matter; rather, they seek the power that fomenting conflict between science and its stakeholders creates for them and their cronies. They presume to tender preferred final conclusions in lieu of science, without having to account under any semblance of scientific rigor, save for at most skepticism itself. They afford no method of peer review, eschew any assessment of entailed risk or the harm they serve to cause to both persons and science; yet promote stacks of highly questionable conclusivity, by means of the free pass established through the intimidating power of their Cabal and its cadre of dark actors.

Like many people, I did not choose a STEM career, just to jump from the old sin/god based religion which was forced on me as a child, and directly into a new religion. I originally chose a STEM career as a choice of ethic. To re-establish in my life that which is un-known, to pursue an insatiable curiosity, to remove fear, instill the broader sense of wonder, and smile again at the ethos of the natural realm. In graduate school, when I was asked to take part in anti-nuclear power protests, or attend nihilist (selling themselves as free thinkers and atheists) skepticism seminars, or sit in situ at presentations by prominent religious figures to ‘represent skepticism,’ I began to feel a core of unease with such actions. I could not articulate this discomfort in graduate school, but now after decades of work globally inside of food, health, science, trade, taxation, infrastructure; both inside and outside of science, spotting the habits and methods of those who seek control of governments and people – yes, the habits of corruption; now I can articulate why I held that ethical discomfort even back in grad school.

That was the genesis of why I chose the pathway I call, ethical skepticism.

The Ethical Skeptic is not a creationist, nor a paranormal peddler; rather is a true skeptic – one who regards new data with receptive discipline, vetting constructs (not observations and data) under Ockham’s Razor regardless of the authorized answers we are obliged to accept and who enforces them. Just because I happen to agree with sound science, does not mean I agree with the tactics and practices of the Social Skeptics who pretend to represent science. Corruption and rules-gaming reside at every level of human endeavor and existence. Academic degrees and professional/celebrity status do not render one immune to this human foible. I don’t desire attention nor to protect myself with the shroud of representing science as do SSkeptics;  rather, I believe in original thinking characterized by ideas which should stand on their own evidential merit.  One thing however is absolutely proven: This world we live in is stranger than any novel ever written, and there exists more plurality under Ockham’s Razor than the control freaks among us would allow to be admitted.

When science does its job, The Ethical Skeptic is the first one to cheer.

But simply because scientists use skeptical thinking discipline, does not mean that skeptics therefore represent science.  The two are not congruent. We have collectively fallen for this sleight of hand.

Skepticism has nothing to do with doubt. Everything to do with curiosity and character.

False skeptics commonly have to be marginalized and ousted in order for human advancement to continue.  This is the lesson and consistent pattern of history.  

A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

~Max Planck

SSkeptics rely upon the certainty that no one will hold them accountable, nor will history recall their ill intended work; yet the Cabal will tender them glory and celebrate the brilliance of their one-liners today. Their self-purported value in improving the quality of scientific literacy is in reality, limited.  Discourse with a Social Skeptic is less about the topic and more about avenues of personal disdain, which club they can categorize you into, followed by an exercise in self-aggrandizement on the part of the role playing SSkeptic.  They are neither accountable to their victims, nor do they hold each other to standards of conduct and peer review.  An unethical social cabal, who’s detriment in obscuring and blocking breaking science, far outweighs their scant value in armchair target debunking the same 16 subjects over and over again. Their vociferous levels of disdain and smug insistence are indicative of and in direct proportion to the unsettling lack of integrity which privately haunts their conscience; their will broken by institutional violation of the mind.

I endured decades of discomfort with what I was being taught by social skepticism advocates, before I finally underwent the epiphanic breakthrough of understanding ethical skepticism. Only then was I able to objectively chose to no longer participate in this type of deceit. :)  In other words, I became a true skeptic.

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: