The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

Interrogative Biasing: Asking the Wrong Question in Order to Get the Right Answer

A wrong question under the scientific method is generally posed for one of two reasons: ignorance or the desire to cultivate ignorance. It is the latter motive for which the ethical skeptic must always be on guard. One learns early on inside the social skepticism movement, that in order to derive the right answer, all one need do is simply ask the wrong question.

Pseudoscience is a descriptive of method, and not of subject. The understanding of this is what differentiates the fake-skeptic from the real thing. One of the primary tactics of pseudoscience is a condition wherein a person tenders the appearance of asking a sciencey-sounding question (usually under the virtue identity of being a ‘skeptic’), while hoping that the victim against whom they are arguing does not comprehend the difference between pseudoscience and real science. The first tactic of pseudoscience is the asking of a biased or incoherent question, which tenders the appearance of being scientific in its crafting. You will be surprised that, even in the halls of established science – this trick is applied and passes peer review. The study claims run along the lines of ‘we are asking an incomplete and partially incoherent answer, and should understand the results for what they are inside that light’ – whereupon the answer is then extrapolated by social activists (social skeptics) into a set of ramifications and pervasive conclusions such studies never meant to impart. This type of study often constitutes a wild, disconnected shot in the dark – a hope for a compliant outcome, through the clever abrogation of real and plenary science.

Failure to follow critical path is a key sign of scientific fraud – even if the internal procedural protocols of a study itself are ethical. A grand statistical study, which does not follow an incremental and dependent pathway of query (in other words, specific outcomes established its sequential logical necessity under Ockham’s Razor) – is fraud dressed up in a science lab coat. It is out of sequence, bypassing much more deductive and direct-testing alternatives, employing science based upon an unsound and manipulated grand set of data – otherwise known as pseudoscience.

An example of such an Ockham’s Razor orphan form of pseudoscience can be found here:

The sincere skeptical researcher, will begin their research from a position of suspended judgement, and then proceed to ask a series of dependent and incremental questions, called a critical path. They are not overly retrophile on previous work/art, often working more as a critic of such approaches. They do not begin with grand statistical studies outside the question domain or focused on one small portion of the scientific or population domains. The onus is upon the ethical skeptic to understand this, and detect when a query seeks to combine or skip questions inside this critical path to force a compliant outcome; or worse, attempt to trick, impugn or twist ideas and people by means of ‘asking a question’. This is done for two reasons: ignorance, or the desire to cultivate ignorance. The two motivations help create each other in a social context, hence the origin of the apothegm of ethical skepticism:

Ignorance is contagious.

The latter, a desire to cultivate ignorance established by means of Verdrängung Mechanism, is practiced by social skeptics. One learns early on inside the social skepticism movement, that in order to derive the right answer, all one need do is first ask the wrong question. It is actually a very brilliant strategy; one can even practice it without knowing that fact. However, it takes a more committed, sincere and sharp acumen, in order to catch the trick which enables this symbiosis between ignorance and the cultivation of ignorance. A trick called interrogative biasing.

Interrogative Biasing

/philosophy : pseudoscience : fallacy : red herring : scientific method pretense/ : ask the wrong question and you are assured to arrive at the right answer. A method of faking science by asking an incomplete, statistical absence, non-probative, ill sequenced or straw man question, fashioned so as to achieve a result which implies a specific desired answer; yet is in no way representative of plenary or ethical science on the matter under consideration.

One can observe interrogative biasing in a number of situations. It usually comes within a context of virtue signaling on the part of the person asking the question. The virtue can be positions of social justice, claims to represent god, or claims to represent science. Interrogative biasing is the strategy of obfuscation through posing of incorrect, impugning or badly sequenced questions of science. But the tactics it typically comprises include:

1.  Querying Reliable Data and Not Probative Data

“We sought medical plan databases, and avoided cohort studies or parental reports due to the unethical or unreliable nature of such study.”

2.  Querying Flawed Means of Collection for Observations of Absence (Hempel’s Paradox)

“We examined two specific public healthcare plan databases in Denmark to observe incidence of accepted claims of plan doctor diagnoses of autism in kids 6 months to 5 years in age.”

3.  Asking a Surreptitiously Incoherent Question (Imposterlösung Mechanism)

“Please provide testable evidence for God.”

4.  Asking an Out of Sequence Question – a question which eventually should be asked, but is dependent upon other questions needed to be answered first

“What technologies will allow us to sequester carbon into ocean water?”

5.  Asking a Currently (Current Knowledge) Unaddressable Question

“If life did not originate from abiogenesis on Earth, then how did life begin?”

6.  Proof Gaming – Demanding things be ‘proven’ before science can be allowed to begin

“What if any, physical proof do you have of this persistent phenomenon (observation)?”

7.  Straw Man Question Framing

“We sought to test if therapeutic vitamin supplementation would have any impact on incidence of heart disease during a 5 year observation horizon of a group of persons.”

8.  Question Lacking in Plenary Science, Adequate or Ethical Domain

“We sought to test if the MMR vaccine was associated with higher rates of autism in Danish children (on a much lower vaccine schedule).”

9.  Trick/Ambiguous/Amphibological Question (uti dolo)

“Do you as a scientist accept the reality of climate change?”

10.  Begging the Point – the framing of a question from a desired answer in such a fashion that its desired conclusion is the only viable answer

“Why if there is no God, is everything around us in perfect designed balance?”

11.  Eristic Question – a question posed so as to pose the recipient in the worst light

“Wasn’t your paper rejected for fraudulent scientific procedure, if I recall correctly?” (Had to correct one assumption, which did not change outcome)

12.  Convergent Semantics – a question which does not allow an answer outside a particular conclusion domain

“Have you stopped beating your wife?”

13.  Red Herring – posing an irrelevant, bucket characterization, misinforming or unsound question

“Why are supplements not controlled by the FDA in ways which scheduled drugs are?”

14.  ingens vanitatum – posing a rapid series of irrelevant questions, in order to tender the appearance of competency inside a subject. However none of the questions seem to bear any critical nature of understanding of the subject being discussed, or are posed in an illogical sequence or order.

“What was the court docket number?  Was the case heard by a state or federal judge? In what precinct was it filed?”

Become skilled at detecting such circumstances in query, and you will be amazed at how the supposed heroes of ‘skepticism’ will in your eyes, steadily become tarnished and fall from grace.

epoché vanguards gnosis


How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “Interrogative Biasing: Asking the Wrong Question in Order to Get the Right Answer” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 14 Jul 2018; Web,

July 14, 2018 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Argument Fallacies | , , | 9 Comments

No You Are Not a Critical Thinker

Ironically, the self-congratulating critical thinker is most likely the first person to be incorrect inside an asymmetric or complex argument. Any time one assumes that they are ready to start drawing likely conclusions, without any preparation, based upon current knowledge, under a presumption of invulnerability and bearing a motivation to mock and deride – Yeah, that’s gonna work…

There are three primary philosophical problems incumbent within the fanciful aeunoia of one who virtue identifies themself as a ‘critical thinker’.

A.  First, the whole deceptive shtick concealed within the marrow of critical thinking, is the implicit premise that, because one is a critical thinker, one cannot be deceived. Everyone else is a credulous believer, only you protect the likely truth. Therein resides the critical thinking abuser’s most conspicuous Achilles’ Heel. The self congratulating critical thinker is most likely the first person to be deceived, because they do not prepare with research, and they bear no introspection (self skepticism), and they believe what they are told by fellow club members, without issue.

B.  A second weakness of this flawed philosophy, resides in the implication that because one only shoots down ideas, one is therefore not promoting any ideas. Ninety nine percent of the time, with a critical thinker, this implication is far from being true (see The Appeal to Skepticism: Inverse Negation Fallacy). Trust me, they are there to promote highly specific answers which fit their religion. The inverse negation tactic is just a show they put on to convince themselves they are not.

C.  Finally, A key cognitive vulnerability of the critical thinker resides in their desire to attain celebrity, mock people and deride subjects. Critical thinkers habitually fail to acknowledge these personal bias vulnerabilities – an essential facet of skeptical or critical thought.

Any time one assumes that they are ready to start drawing likely conclusions, without any preparation, based upon current knowledge, under a presumption of invulnerability and bearing a motivation to mock and deride – they bear the highest likelihood of errors in judgement. History shows that this type of thinking is foolishness. Everyone, for the most part, is a critical thinker and skeptic. They just don’t go around telling every person they meet, about such an assumed virtue identity. There is a reason for that – because they do not want to be associated with those who call themselves ‘critical thinkers’. And here are thirty reasons why.

The Critical Thinker Dirty Thirty

No You are Not a Critical Thinker – IF YOU:

1.  Believe that your current level of knowledge is a sound basis from which to resolve a complex or multifaceted persistent mystery.

2.  Believe that ‘assailing the facts’ – is tantamount to investigation.

3.  Research ‘skeptic’ literature first as you investigate anything.

4.  Think anything can be probed or resolved from a pub stool or while imbibing alcohol.

5.  Believe that you are adequately prepared in the now, to ‘Ask a Question’ (the first step in the pseudo-scientific method).

6.  Habitually avoid your past or qualifications (other than club membership).

7.  Overblow an irrelevant past, education, honors or qualifications set (even if it contains a PhD).

8.  Believe that ‘critical thinkers’ are people who think exactly like you – ironically. Then exacerbate this by gathering into a club with them, as if that is going to add value to a challenging subject; ignoring the history that such action never has served to resolve anything.

9.  Seek celebrity and money through being one.

10.  Virtue signal as a means to enforce your correctness.

11.  Think the world is bifurcated into believers and skeptics.

12.  Employ the terms ‘woo’ or ‘pseudoscience’ when referencing an entire field of study.

13.  Use the term ‘woo’ at all.

14.  Bear the Pollyanna delusion that teaching critical thinking will make it all go away.

15.  Speak often and equivocally of ‘doubt’.

16.  Are able to explain pretty much everything.

17.  Find the answer to always be simple.

18.  Never fail to produce the most likely answer to a mystery.

19.  Pretend that serious investigators have genuinely wanted or sought your opinion.

20.  Find your biggest thrill in discrediting persons.

21.  Cite any form of absence of observation/research as evidence of absence. Especially if you cannot even tell when you have done this.

22.  Consider a plausible explanation to be congruent with a scientific hypothesis.

23.  Think that observations are ‘claims’.

24.  Think a person’s lack of skill in describing a phenomena or taking a clear photo of it, is evidence of its absence.

25.  Regard plausibility as ‘likely proved’ – and call something debunked from there.

26.  Go only deep enough into ‘the evidence’ to find a tidbit to confirm your a priori bias.

27.  Hold a goal of social praise or mocking others.

28.  Assume that others are not critical thinkers or skeptics – simply because they hold open a disposition or might not agree with you.

29.  Declare something as unlikely, without any study or statistics to underpin such a claim.

30.  Call yourself a critical thinker.

That is pretty much it. In any one drunken session at your local watering hole, you will find probably all 30 of these violated in any given evening.

Critical thinking. Remote viewing, for those who do not believe in remote viewing. Ethical skeptics demand more than this, of themselves and of their ‘thinker’ friends.

epoché vanguards gnosis


How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “No You Are Not a Critical Thinker” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 7 Jul 2018; Web,

July 8, 2018 Posted by | Argument Fallacies | , | 3 Comments

When Skepticism is a Symptom of Cognitive Impairment

While fake skeptics plead that their habits stem indeed from established ‘methods of science’, perhaps their form of methodical cynicism does not arise from rationality at all. To the contrary, such intransigence may in reality be a symptom of underlying physiologically based cognitive impairment. The brain protects itself through skepticism, because it does not possess the resource nor oxygen permeation capacity, necessary to handle the demand placed upon it by novel or challenging constructs.
An impairment which expresses in the form of angry dissonance, much like hypoxic or math anxiety, in the mind of those who no longer possess the bandwidth, cerebral functional integrity and depth requisite in the wielding of great ideas.

I bought my mother a replacement for her old flip phone this last year. She resisted me for months on this, declaring that she “did not need a new phone”. So finally, when her old flip phone crapped out, I convinced her to let me add her to my family mobile plan, and get her a new LG smart phone. I placed it in ‘simple mode’ – a brilliant option on LG phones which positions just the most important six icons on the main screen when the unit is powered up.  It took me two weeks just to teach her how to push the button on the screen which answers incoming calls.  Then another month on how to identify the top and the bottom of the phone (she kept answering it with the speaker down by her mouth).  Finally, when I thought it to be the right time, I suggested that she press the button for ‘messages’ – when it had a “1” beside it. I told her that it might just contain a note, just like an email but much easier, with pictures of the kids or me; or a note saying hello, I love you, or some good news. Good things. Easy to open and view. That was too much for my mom. I had crossed the line.

Even to this very day she has abjectly refused to even attempt to push the text message button and read what is inside. My urging only serves to generate an odd form of anxiety inside her. A fear of the new and overwhelming. Now this was not the way my mother was when younger. She was an early adopter in her younger years, researching health way before it was popular, doing yoga when no one had even heard the word ‘yoga’, and trying brand new technologies as soon as they came out. She could not wait to get the first Polaroid cameras, touting the quickness to the photo, and avoiding that horrid 10 minute drive to the drug store to drop off and pick up film and photos.

Now mind you, she can see the phone just fine, as her vision is still great. She can observe all the screen objects and easily work all the buttons. Nonetheless these feature challenges I have observed to impart an anxiety inside her; anxiety shared in common with her reaction to other novel technology, new ideas, creativity and situational developments. She clings obsessively to the familiar, the explained, the old. My mother is not alone in this proclivity by any means.

In similar fashion, each of my brilliant friends from high school and undergraduate school have slowly begun to succumb to this ‘lack of curiosity and intolerance of innovation’ – syndrome. I call it a syndrome because it appears to come on with age, increase in severity with age, and is irreversible once past inception. The victim does not seem to be able to ‘change one’s mind’ about this form of cynical intolerance. One becomes solely dependent upon the school-styled skills of memorization, procedure, training and chains of familiarity. Paradigm shattering ideas, which my scientist and engineer buddies used to love to ponder for weeks on end, now only serve to make them anxious. They avoid the topics now, and say little to nothing about them any more.

They call it ‘critical thinking’ – but I rarely witness anything of the sort inside its execution. It should be instead entitled ‘conformance protocols’ – a type of thinking welfare for those of impoverished cognition.

Last month when the Tic-Tac UFO incident study set reared its disdained head again, I sent a note seeking some feature input, to my buddy in Forward Looking Infrared Technology Development at Raytheon. Twenty years ago, we would have stayed up for hours discussing the possibility that some of our anomalous observations were indeed something of Earth-shattering import. Now, he not only won’t speak about such things, but he inevitably resorts to the mindless meme-styled one-liner taunts – “It’s space aliens!!” I can no longer get anything of depth or quality out of him, nothing more than a bot would tender in response. He is up on the latest happenings with former Pantera members, or how the Dodgers are faring – but that is about it. He is a hollow cubicle-bound shell of his former self. This is a significant problem which mirrors itself in the minds of many of my ‘skeptic’ acquaintances as well. They get anxiety over such subjects, and begin to progressively avoid them, reactively shutting down as they age. This process has nothing to do with wisdom – and everything to do with lacking a young dynamic mind and sufficient cognitive capacity.

“A growing body of research reveals that the prevalence of late-life anxiety coexisting with cognitive impairment is more common than may have been suspected. And it appears that a symbiotic relationship exists between the two.”

~Stanford University School of Medicine researchers Sherry Beaudreau, Ph.D., and Ruth O’Hara, Ph.D. in their study in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry1

My friend thinks he is being funny. But he forgets that he has used the same one-liner over and over for years in the same circumstance. Perceiving each time that he has contributed something innovative and comically original. But to me, I observe the collapse of his intellectual integrity – a mind no longer possessing the bandwidth to examine paradigms and novel information – rather only now able to follow the Laplace/Lagrange scripts which we were taught in Calculus VI or the sensor calibration protocols on certain satellite systems.  He no longer creates, no longer envisions, no longer challenges anything familiar – only and exclusively denying the novel or intimidating idea. His career – his life – his youthful mind, have all stalled. And perhaps frustration over this reality may impart more to his cynicism than the impairment itself; nonetheless, I observe a hollow form of what used to be my friend. Nigh unto watching a loved one sink into dementia. He thinks it is because he is ‘smarter and more scientific’ now. I see it as a form of creeping cognitive impairment – no different than the case of my mother and her new smart phone.

High Anxiety – A Sign that One’s Intellectual Capacity has been Outstripped

All this reminded me of my flight training in the Navy. After passing the 50 meter underwater swim, the Dilbert Dunker and the Ejection Seat Simulator (or ‘rocket chair’ as it is affectionately known), all with flying colors – I thought that the hypobaric altitude chamber would be a cinch to accomplish. In the altitude chamber, atmosphere is gradually removed by means of a vacuum, to simulate the conditions of higher altitude so that the pilot can recognize by this prior experience, the signs of hypoxia. Hypoxia is a deficiency in the amount of oxygen reaching the brain tissues. Please note that, even though technically the oxygen-deficient blood of the cognitively impaired mind of an adult at sea level would be known as hypoxemia, the condition in the brain tissue under circumstances of hypoxemia is nevertheless called hypoxia. So we use the term endogenous hypoxia here to describe any condition of shortage in oxygen to the brain tissue under normal conditions, necessary for certain complex cognitive integral functions. Endogenous hypoxia is not something which at low levels, can necessarily be detected by its sufferer.

But what are the symptoms of low scale endogenous hypoxia? The same as low magnitude exogenous hypoxia (altitude sickness), which are2

  • confusion/disorientation
  • anxiety
  • behavioral change (usually anger)
  • ataxia

It is these first three symptoms, confusion/disorientation, anxiety and anger which interest me the most. When I was in the altitude chamber, I and two other candidates were selected to stay in the chamber the longest, and allow the other pilot candidates to observe how hypoxia works. My buddy Alex had been assigned to sort a deck of playing cards into a box with four slots cut into and labeled by card suit.  At 26,000 feet he was failing miserably. Laughing at him while I observed his difficulties, I noticed that I was struggling to perform some rather simple math equations which I had been assigned to solve. I recognized the abstract symbols on the paper, but could not attach any meaning to them, nor to the associated procedural library I had stored in my brain. It was at that moment that I began to realize that the abstract symbols were terrifying me. Math anxiety. I could not translate the abstract symbolic set before me, into a structured and procedural way to resolve them in my mind. It was not simply confusion – I was threatened by symbols I recognized but could not resolve. It was a procedural anxiety over an abstract challenge – pure and simple. The chamber director spoke over the loudspeaker and asked “Midshipman TES, how are you doing over there?”. I just stared at him with a look of bewilderment and displeasure on my face. It was a topic of great fun over beers later that evening. “TES, you looked like you were going to kill the instructor there man.” Something the instructor told me he had seen many times before.

The solution for the pilot facing hypoxia? Procedure and training. In order to function under a risk of hypoxia – the competent pilot trains himself or herself as to how to carry out basic functions to regain oxygen and keep the aircraft in flight all the way to touchdown or tailhook. Becoming procedurally minded is a must in such a situation. Again in Naval Intelligence, I once was tasked to fly on short notice from Washington D.C. to Sigonella, Sicily – without my uniforms. I was able to quickly purchase an officer’s cap in the Naval Academy Midshipman Store – whereupon I could obtain the rest of the ensemble at a later time during my tasking. Accordingly, I wrote my name on the courtesy card inside the officer’s cap while tucked away on top of crates inside the cargo compartment of a C-130. Years later I realized, that I had misspelled my own name – while riding there at 36,000 feet of altitude. The cargo compartment had been slightly depressurized for much of the trip. For those suffering cognitive impairment, procedure is everything. Even down to how to spell one’s own name. Procedure is your life blood. As long as you follow procedure, you can be somewhat cognitively impaired, and still be a reasonable B student or apothegm-spouting ‘skeptic’.

Note: which is also why I do not hire B students, the following dangers exist inside the body of B students:

  1. They are A students who were lazy, or
  2. They are C students who cheated or had unfair access to ‘word’, or
  3. They are mildly cognitive-impaired yet know how to follow a procedure or a lesson plan.

Few of these types do I want in my organizations.

A problem exists however, when the majority of society is functioning under such a burden. This provides a fertile breeding ground for social skeptics.

The irony is that today, this same disorientation anxiety exists in the minds of skeptics, when challenged with abstract constructs which they cannot resolve into the easy, nonthreatening and procedural. The only difference resides in the fact that in everyday life, this ‘hypoxia’ victim must adorn a costume in the form of method and power-identity, in order to socially conceal their disorientation and anxiety. An anxiety which prompts them into attacking those they see as the messengers of the abstract: ‘woo’ and ‘pseudoscience’. They must hold the social power at all times, so as not to be found out.

To me, this is why social skeptics seem to react with such negative vehemence towards issues which should otherwise bear little social detriment and paucity of true impact on their lives. They compensate for their fear with high school social tactics – becoming virtue signaling, chest pounding science-bullies in the process.

Sometimes, skepticism itself is a sickness. The brain protects itself through skepticism, because it does not posses the resources nor oxygen permeation capacity, necessary to handle the demand placed upon it by a novel idea. Once I observe a person to head down this style of fake (dissonance-anxiety) skepticism, they never come back. They cannot heal themselves of this physiological malady.

Is Procedural-Mindedness a Symptom of Cognitive Impairment?

The creative mind, functions in a way that is wholly different from the task oriented mind. A recent study published in Nature Scientific Reports, entitled Brain networks for visual creativity: a functional connectivity study of planning a visual artwork, by Nicola De Pisapia, Francesca Bacci, Danielle Parrott and David Melcher elicited this very principle.3 In the study, the authors tested the idea that creativity (planning an artwork) would influence the functional connectivity between regions involved in the brain, which are also implicated in divergent thinking and generating novel ideas. The key observation which arose from the study was that creative generative processes, require a complex use of multiple regions, and networks, of the brain simultaneously – a demand in resources far outstripping the normal daily or procedural task. They measured functional connectivity by means of functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) during three different conditions: rest, visual imagery of the alphabet and planning an artwork to be executed immediately after the scanning session. Therein they found a stronger connectivity between areas of default activity and executive decision capacity during the creative task, and this difference was enhanced as well in professional artists. These findings suggest that creativity involves an expert balance of two brain networks typically viewed as being in opposition. This demanded, according to the study, several orders of magnitude more in cognitive processing ability than did procedural tasks.

Creativity is roughly definable as the process of generating novel and worthwhile ideas or objects and is thought to involve several types of cognitive abilities. One widespread idea is that creativity must involve both novelty (new ideas or objects are the outcome) and usefulness (the new idea/object must be worthwhile). There is widespread consensus that creativity is a fundamental and valuable part of human cognition.4

Indeed, the ability to register an abstract symbology, and resolve it into a procedural understanding takes just this sort of cognitive capability and creativity on a person’s part. To be able to grasp, receive and digest a creative work takes every bit the cognitive capacity which is required to create it. Skeptics often lack this ability and project their dissonance-anxiety towards those who do have this talent.

It is my conjecture that the inability of skeptics to register or create per hoc aditum asymmetrical or complex scenarios in their mind, produces a kind of dissonance-based anxiety and anger – which they then express towards the messengers of such threatening symbologies. They lack the physiological cognitive resources (possibly oxygen permeation) which are required to calmly digest and contemplate such challenges to their paradigms and comfort zones.

If you doubt this, simply examine the comments section of any post, article or study regarding the 768 forbidden subjects identified in The Skeptic’s Dictionary. You will observe endless angry diatribes on the part of those who lack cognitive depth – those who have been trained in the use of the weapons necessary in concealing their pathology. Heavy use of one liners, Bridgman reduction and personal attacks. They are angry and employ a pretense of science as their billy club – of this fact, society has little doubt. (Note: I do not get such anxiety. I embrace change and challenging new abstract ideas with passion – only rejecting them when the evidence becomes overwhelming. On any typical issue I may hold 7 different alternative explanations and supportive evidence sets in my mind, without anxiety nor dissonance at all. I also have been certified by my cardiologist to be ‘arterial plaque free’ – because of a certain method I used to eliminate calcium phosphate-LDL cholesterol plaque from my heart and brain blood vessels. I noticed a significant boost in my cognitive capabilities after the associated therapy.)

I have seen this often in business meetings, where the subject matter, or the array of complex challenges outstrip the ability of some of the members present to process and register what is being contended or discussed. Often these people will get angry and lash out at the person they perceive to be forcing their dissonance. They become unethical in their anger. They become caricatures of science and skepticism, frothing inappropriately over people and events serving to introduce the abstract which exceeded their resource capacity, rather than the ideas over which they should normally be intellectual masters.

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”

~F. Scott Fitzgerald

The ethical skeptic must always have the mental capacity to tolerate the introduction of new ideas, listen to the eyewitnesses without being threatened in the process. It is a sign of one’s intellectual reserve – the ability to exhibit the grace, integrity and acumen requisite in the wielding of great ideas.

epoché vanguards gnosis


How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “When Skepticism is a Symptom of Cognitive Impairment” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 5 Jul 2018; Web,

July 5, 2018 Posted by | Social Disdain | , , | 7 Comments

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: