The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

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’.

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 😢. Maybe you want to tout the life extending benefits of drinking alcohol, or overinflate death rates so that you can blame it on people you hate – or maybe you are just plain ol’ weary of the requisite 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. 👍

Crank up your science communicators and notify them to be at the ready, to 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

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.

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 nor frame the core problem definition, nor the data pulled, nor the methodology/architecture of study.

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 systematic review, randomized controlled trial, cohort study, case-control study, cross-sectional study, case reports and series, or reports 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.  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. 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/salience of the contained measures themselves.

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 (our 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.  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 a 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.  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. 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.

epoché vanguards gnosis


How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “The Lyin’tific Method: The Ten Commandments of Fake Science” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 3 Sep 2018; Web,

September 3, 2018 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Institutional Mandates, Social Disdain | , | Leave a comment

Quashing Study of Ancient Artifacts Violates a Basic Human Right

Public access to study artifacts which serve to illuminate mankind’s social, morphological and genetic history should not be denied based upon property conventions of any tribe, culture, owner, propriety, government, nation, intelligence group or institution. Knowledge is a basic human right; and in particular, it is a basic human right to access freely the knowledge of where mankind came from and the pathway which brought us here as a species.
The Atacama Mummy is the prior art property of all of mankind and not of a single trivial haplogroup, nation or organization. Our understanding of such matters of science ethics urgently needs to evolve.

I read an article today written by a group of social skeptics, concerning a recent study of the Atacama ‘Mummy’. Ata, as she is called in short, is the 6 inch long anomalous preterm foetus, mostly human female skeleton, analyzed inside the following, unprecedented study:

Bhattacharya et al.; Whole-genome sequencing of Atacama skeleton shows novel mutations linked with dysplasia; Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press: Genome Research; March 22, 2018, doi: 10.1101/gr.223693.117 Genome Res. 2018. 28: 423-431; 2018;

A critique article (not a study) was pre-released this week, which concerned me ethically a great deal. This regards an aspect of human rights which I have been contemplating over the last three decades of private interest work. The article was authored by a group of social skeptics obviously upset by the astounding nature of the original Bhattacharya Study above. A knee-jerk form of anger with which I have been long acquainted inside my study of fake skepticism.

Halcrow et al.; On engagement with anthropology: A critical evaluation of skeletal and developmental abnormalities in the Atacama preterm baby and issues of forensic and bioarchaeological research ethics. Response to Bhattacharya et al. “Whole-genome sequencing of Atacama skeleton shows novel mutations linked with dysplasia”; Genome Research, 2018, 28: 423–431. Doi: 10.1101/gr.223693.117;

The Halcrow Article

The Halcrow Article made a number of boasts, complimented by several apparently valid objections related to the morphological expression of various genetic conditions contended inside the Bhattacharya Study. I am not an expert in such matters so I will not comment technically upon them; however, I am an expert in the ethical philosophy of science and skepticism. The article attempts to brand itself as a scientific study by raising peer-review styled questions regarding these purported bone morphologies and in relation to our current understanding of the genes which influence them. But the article buries a deceptive lede in the process. This peer review doubt is employed as a disguise, an artifice the authors abused in order to interleave elements of oppressive personal bias inside a series of scientific claims. Like a dude trying to dress up as a hott chick in order to gain entry into a fashionable nightclub or a patent inventor attempting to patent a new device along with slipping in an itemized claim to have invented gravity as well. They did not pull it off well however – heck, even a layman like me caught it.

The real purpose of the article was to slip its supplemental fluff opinion segments by as if they were peer reviewed outcomes of science. This was not a refutation of the core Bhattacharya Study analysis (see below), as Forbes (a notorious fake ‘science communication’ outlet) inexpertly contends in the propaganda piece referred to on the right, rather only a questioning of peripheral morphological analyses and the overall age of the creature when it died.  Aside from these observations, the article is disingenuous and dishonest (this will not be the only time) in this hybrid-costumed approach – attempting to pass off social agendas and pseudoscience, nestled inside of and pretending to also constitute real science or peer review.

The article stands as a textbook ethical skepticism example of the control-minded among us cultivating ignorance. Moreover, below I have outlined a couple comments from within the fluff opinion sections of the Halcrow Article which should greatly concern us all.

“Although this testing was not sensu stricto necessary, once her humanity was confirmed, analysis should have stopped and her body should have been repatriated to Chile.”

This is not entirely true. In fact this is an ethically ludicrous assertion. Such thinking defines a false Machiavellian virtue which we must face down and overturn as humankind. Regardless of Ata’s provenance – the fact remains, that a substantial percentage of artifacts which challenge our understanding are going to arrive through less than pretty sources. Mandate that governments or cultures immediately need confiscate (and most often historically, sequester and stagnate) such artifacts, and one ensures that such evidence will never surface again, being delivered straight into silent private collections. Science will inevitably become partially occult under such oppression. Ethics dictate that academics and scientists not own the sources of scientific observation, critically when it regards a challenge to current understanding and particularly when DNA analysis is involved. Competition is critical inside science, and let’s be clear – the Halcrow et al. Article is not posed inside a competitive context, nor does it actually even constitute peer review; rather it is a quashing of science through pluralistic ignorance and appeal to authority. DNA maintains first precedent among the epistemological resources available to mankind and should not be subjugated to religious politics attempting to manage the direction and investigation domain of science. The morphology of the skeleton did indeed raise Ockham’s Razor plurality. It was odd enough to justify scientific curiosity, and even if that were not enough, the ethical mandate to test a one of a kind foetus should have piqued study to begin with. So given all this, in ‘sensu stricto’ the testing was fundamentally as science, necessary. The fact is that these researchers who originally produced Ata, introducing it into the public domain for study, indeed executed an ethical act. They realized that Ata would eventually retire to its owners – however they took the risk in order to further mankind’s understanding.

If we allow the Halcrow et al. authors of the world publicly demean such finders and researchers; and further then to dictate a call for confiscation of study material, then that will be the end of true scientific ethics, like those just exhibited by Ata’s original finders. ~TES

The artifact remains should be repatriated to Chile and the applicable native South American tribe, only after a full set of study has been completed, AND samples are retained for future, more highly advanced, DNA analysis. This is how ethical science works inside the context of human rights. Human right to the truth contained in DNA, takes precedent over any institution, tribe, government or other social virtue agenda. The right parties will eventually get their mummy – but they do not have the right in the meantime to withhold vital information from mankind. This would constitute a form of racial bigotry in its enforcement.

The artifact exists in a temporarily indivisible duality: it is simultaneously both a physical object and a public domain information set. The asset or cultural ‘owner’ of the artifact only owns the physical item; they do not own the information which it contains – nor do they bear the right to restrict access to such information. This is a type of easement, similar to a property easement which is administered for the benefit of everyone, and not just the property title holder. Each of these dual entities involves differing legal, moral and ethical implications; and until they are separated by study and documentation of the contained intelligence into the public domain, no one party can claim authority over both sides of this unique duality. Maintaining this duality in pressure upon obfuscating governments and institutions will ensure the competition and efficacy of science. Both the physical object owner and the public information owners will want analysis completed in as expedient a fashion as is reasonable. Lawyers are you listening? Because such a case is going to be tried, and eventually won. ~TES

Nonetheless, let’s continue on with the next in the series of ridiculous and oppressive contentions.

“In the case of Ata, costly and time-consuming scientific testing using whole genome techniques was unnecessary and unethical.”

This constitutes a red herring fallacy, yet even aside from such deception, is also not ethically valid, nor is it even accurate. Aside from the fact that humans lie and DNA does not, the cost and time involved in whole genome sequencing is not anything near its recent past levels. The authors admit themselves that “only one of us (MK) is a specialist in human genomics”. Has Michael Knapp been involved in any genome sequencing lately? I have. I have paid for or helped fund several studies. The first one cost nearly $250,000. That, a mere pittance in comparison to the knowledge gained. However, such studies are a mere fraction of the cost and effort involved even 5 years ago – equating to somewhere around $4,000 to draft sequence an entire human genome today.1 Where has this guy been? Where has this team been?

Unnecessary? To the ‘researchers’ assembled for this study, apparently there was no connection between an unprecedented morphological being and an unprecedented DNA whole genome sequence. No, ends typically do not justify means as the apothegm goes, however in this case we are not ‘justifying the means’; rather the case for starting science to begin with. Science advances on both ‘true’ and especially ‘false’ outcomes. It never advances upon anti-curious social normatives. This is a key tenet of ethical science. To shut down scientific inquiry such as this is a dangerous precedent – exemplary of the jackboot and pluralistic ignorance which exists inside socially manipulated science today. Was Ockham’s Razor surpassed? Yes, manifestly. The authors of this propaganda piece contend that this artifact should not have never been studied in the first place, based simply upon the old tired stricture pseudoscience: they don’t like the people involved, nor where the study was headed. Apparently to Halcrow et al., science should never begin by surveying the environment and asking a question, rather should begin by ignoring the environment and tendering answers (buried as lede inside pretend studies). Shutting down scientific inquiry during the sponsorship stage, by declaring that ‘study is unnecessary’ – is corrupt, purposed for power, and in no way resembles anything near to something called science.

Unethical? Unethical to whom? A close genetically related haplogroup of today? That is scientifically questionable, and is often racially bigoted in its exercise. The Government of Chile? That is even more questionable. I am not sure that their rights to do what they will with an artifact (information) – outlast the rights of humanity to access knowledge about its own origins or progression as a species. Again, men lie. They need to be held accountable, and no level of virtue ethics spinning can countermand the rights of the rest of humanity on this and similar matters. No one may possess the right, to deny the rights of others by means of information control. And let’s be clear, this find is information – as a priority over its being a dead being. It is intelligence. It is the prior art property of all of mankind and not of a single tribe or nation. Its physical ownership or putative genetic affiliations stand as secondary, or even tertiary in importance.

So, based upon the ridiculous attempts exhibited in this article at squelching knowledge through an appeal to authority, let’s establish a normative of ethical skepticism now:


Basic Human Right to Knowledge of Mankind’s Origins and Progression

/philosophy : human rights/ : Public access to study artifacts serving to illuminate mankind’s social, morphological and genetic history should not be denied based upon property conventions of any haplogroup, culture, owner, propriety, government, nation, intelligence group or institution. Knowledge is a basic human right; and in particular, it is a basic human right to access freely the knowledge of where mankind came from and the pathway which brought us here as a species. The Artifacts involved in such study are the property of mankind before they are the property or propriety of any and all other entities. Public access to objective physical, morphological, phenomenological and DNA study is the first duty of all paleontology and archaeology.

A.  The free study of found artifacts should not be impinged based upon provenance alone, provided that such artifacts are eventually retired to their cultural owners. Cultural or national propriety over found artifacts only takes precedence once all appropriate study has been completed and communicated into the public domain.

B.  The knowledge of any hybrid, exceptional, novel, extra or ultra-terrestrial, technological, extinct, predecessor or otherwise equal or advanced intervening culture of any form, whether past or present, shall not be the property of any single or collective group based upon haplogroup, culture, property, propriety, government, nation, intelligence group or institution. Such knowledge is, as the supreme and immediate priority, the irrevocable property of mankind.

C.  Access to such knowledge shall not be denied, and no law shall be written nor considered legally binding, which restricts the free access thereof.


Now that my channel with Thomas Jefferson has ended, let us continue with the litany of ridiculous information-squelching contentions made inside this hit-piece.

“We caution DNA researchers about getting involved in cases that lack clear context and legality, or where the remains have resided in private collections.”

No, we caution you Halcrow, et al. The authors overstep their bounds here; coursing into an imperious display of religious bias and incompetence. The reality of ‘lack of context’ you identify here is wholly and solely the fault of your Cabal; which is irrationally interested in suppressing information based upon its source, involved personalities, channel and implication. The market simply reacts to an unfair monopoly here. This responsibility involves a principle outlined earlier in this blog article, which your cadre of fake skeptics consistently fails to grasp, Haspel’s Paradox.

Haspel’s Paradox – a suppressed idea mutates to ever more virulent forms, these are then invoked to justify its continued suppression.

We can make any law – that does not mean we cannot work ethically to change oppressive ignorance-promoting laws. See the above statement on human rights to knowledge. You, as scientists, do not own this right to develop & qualify information. You hold no right to caution anyone. Neither does a tribe or nation own this artifact, ethically. Humanity does.

You guys in academic socialism are just going to have to get used to private collections, as they are a reality and in part, your fault. Private collections are an expression of mistrust, on the part of individuals who know that your Cabal lies on a regular basis, and want to know the truth, if only for themselves. If we can use their contained artifacts for study and the owner recognizes that they own the ‘piece’ and not its information – well possibly that beneficial understanding might just stem from our new ethical view on the matter (as outlined in this blog).  But such understanding on the part of private collection owners will never come about with the Halcrow et al.’s of the world threatening them with loss of their property and with warnings to DNA researchers. These are actions of social skepticism. Knowledge will ironically be obfuscated ‘because of science’. Anything short of this new realization, then the ‘owners’ are doing nothing different than is the ‘country’. They will both continue claiming to own – and more importantly hide from analysis – that which is not theirs to hold in the first place.

“In the end, even the novel genetic variations discovered in Ata’s genome are of uncertain significance.”

Given the context of the article, I find the statement that Ata’s genome is of ‘uncertain significance’ to not be credible. It is deceptively and equivocally worded. The article makes it clear that the genome study was unnecessary and of null significance in the eyes of the authors – so this statement was a lie. The equivocal statement only serves to engender mistrust at this point, tucked away at the end of the article and worded so as to appear unbiased and objective. Bullshit. I do not believe you. And dear reader, please recall that the article authors tried to pass these types of statements off as peer reviewed outcomes of science, by tucking them inside a technical review of bone/DNA morphologies. Contending or implying that there was no connection between an unprecedented morphological being and an unprecedented DNA whole genome sequence inside a study masquerade, constitutes incompetence and desire to deceive, on a grand scale.

DNA Does Not Lie – Scientists However Do

Moreover, these large-scale single nucleotide, block indel and structural variants in no way constitute simple ‘novel genetic variations’ as the article frames them; rather they involve [Bhattacharya et al.; Whole-genome sequencing…]:

i.  3,356,569 single nucleotide variations (SNVs),

ii.  518,365 insertions and deletions (indels), and

iii.  1047 structural variations (SVs) were detected as compared to a human reference genome.

None of this was even mentioned in the Halcrow Article. The only time it was alluded to, the above variance was downplayed as part of a desperate grasp at the plausible deniability of ‘nitrate exposure’ and to question the haplogroup and human they used as the genomic reference. In other words, desperate rhetoric. Again, show me the precedent for such large scale and functional ‘mutation’. To make the implication that this is not a mystery is just plain old agenda-spinning ignorance. To suggest that no morphological feature of this artifact should have served to raise a scientific question at all, is corrupt in its crafting. The DNA simply serves to confirm this.

In order to place this DNA divergence into perspective – this genetic distance represents slightly more than the separation break between Homo sapiens and Neanderthal, at about 3 million base pairs.2 This represents 300,000 years differential evolution at the Scally/Sykes rate of observed natural genetic mutation.3 4 Three hundred millennia of evolution comprised inside one single generation of in-species birth. Technically, we encountered a completely new species of man in the case of Ata. However, we panicked so badly as to how to spin this information for damage control (as are the Halcrow Article authors now), we failed to take note of the scientific observation. An observation just as exotic in nature as the discovery of Denisova hominins, Homo naledi, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo floresiensis. Finding human DNA inside a set of remains, does not logically constrain our conclusion therefore to that of the remains being modern human, as the article has incorrectly contended. Each of the four predecessors just listed, as it turns out all have human DNA in them – this does not serve to make them modern Homo sapiens.

The study of this little mostly human foetus could serve to turn our understanding of the mechanisms underpinning evolution upon its ear, or advance us decades into the future of our understanding of speciation. Yet, we think it is ethical to bury this evidence back in the ground. Much like having the Royal Navy sink Darwin’s ship HMS Beagle, replete with all his work, because it did not pay its port departure fee. I swoon at such virtuous action!

Halcrow Article experts, query your human genetic representative, Michael Knapp. Have him email me with even ONE SINGLE precedent for a single generation mutation which has attained this level of variance from its parental genome – and lived long enough to be analyzed as a creature for that matter. In fact, I challenge all the study authors to explain to me – one highly involved in genetic studies, just how this 3.4 million SNV genetic distance was attained in a single generational reproductive context. I await your expert response.

My email is

Men lie, organizations lie, skeptics lie, scientists lie, intelligence agencies lie, governments lie. Even tribes will lie in order to obtain compensation. None of these entities can be entrusted with authority over a basic human right. This is not how human rights work – they are not granted nor dispensed at the authoritative discretion of a group of humans. Even if the humans claim to represent science, or scientists. We have learned this from our fake skepticism movement – trust must reside in the strictures of ethical procedure (goals of value, clarity, risk and suffering mitigation), and not in the hands of men. We left the days of rule by demi-god and royalty centuries ago. It is time we abandon the draconian practices of information control in the name of fake third world virtue as well. Mankind bears the legacy of this mandated ignorance even now, its cat-o-nine stripes emblazoned across our collective backs. It is time we evolve as a species – face our foibles, face with courage the information which is buried in our institutional vaults and under our feet. As one species and not as a group of privileged tribal interests.

DNA does not lie. This avenue of integrity is where we owe our first allegiance. Humanity is where we owe our overarching fealty; nowhere else – especially in the case of ad hoc ethics adopted as a pretense employed to rob humanity of its past and squelch the spread of information we do not like.

epoché vanguards gnosis


How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “Quashing Study of Ancient Artifacts Violates a Basic Human Right” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 21 Jul 2018; Web,


July 21, 2018 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda | , , | 3 Comments

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

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: