The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

The Three Types of Reason

Not all methods which seek to achieve some kind of benefit through the clear, value laden and risk abating processes of inference can be used in every circumstance. Most of science recognizes this. But when induction is used in lieu of deduction or abduction is used in lieu of induction, when the higher order of logical inference could have been used – beware that pseudoscience might be at play.
Choosing the lower order of logical inference can be a method by which one avoids challenging alternatives and data, yet still tenders the appearance of conducting science.

There is this thing called logical inference. Simply put, logical inference is the process of taking observed premises and transmutating them into conjectures. Hopefully beneficial conjectures. Such a process usually involves risk. So, when we are challenged with the need to make some kind of benefit happen, say to alleviate a sickness, or fly from place to place, at times we must face risk in order to achieve such an advancement. The process of science involves a carefully planned set of steps, which allows us to bridge this gap between premise and robust conjecture by means of the most clear, value laden and risk abating pathway which we can determine.

In general, there are three rational processes by which we can arrive at a sought-after conclusion or explanation. Abductive, inductive and deductive reason – in order of increasing scientific gravitas and strength as developmental models of knowledge – constitute the three genres of thought inside which we mature information and methods of research, towards this end. In the graphic to the right, you will observe the three genres of logical inference compared by the mechanism of science which it brings to bear as a strength. As you can see, the most expedient form of answer development is abduction, and the most science-intensive form is deduction. As you move from left to right in the table, the epistemological basis of the explanation increases commensurate with the rigor of research and discipline of thinking. Each ‘scientific mechanism’ is an element, step or feature of the scientific method which affords an increase in verity inside the knowledge development process. A blue check mark means that inference method provides or satisfies the science mechanism. An orange check mark denotes the condition wherein the inference method only partially provides for the scientific mechanism.

Deduction therefore, is the most robust form of inference available to the researcher. Unfortunately however, not every inquiry challenge which we collectively face, can be resolved by deductive methodology. In those instances we may choose to step down to induction as our means of resolving difficult-to-falsify research.

However, researcher beware. Choosing the lower order of logical inference can be a method by which one avoids challenging answers, yet still tenders the appearance of conducting science. We start first with a favorite trick of social skeptics – i.e. employing abductive reason in instance where deductive discipline or inductive study are warranted (see Diagnostician’s Error). A second trick can involve the appearance of science through the intensive focus on one approach at the purposeful expense of necessary and critical alternatives (see The Omega Hypothesis). One can dress up in an abductive robe and tender an affectation of science – but an ethical skeptic is armed to know otherwise.

Methodical Deescalation

/philosophy : pseudoscience : inadequate inference method/ : employing abductive inference in lieu of inductive inference when inductive inference could have, and under the scientific method should have, been employed. In similar fashion employing inductive inference in lieu of deductive inference when deductive inference could have, and under the scientific method should have, been employed.

With that being said, let’s examine these three types of reason.

Reasoning (Logical Inference) Types†

Abductive Reason

/Diagnostic Inference/ : a form of precedent based inference which starts with an observation then seeks to find the simplest or most likely explanation. In abductive reasoning, unlike in deductive reasoning, the premises do not guarantee the conclusion. One can understand abductive reasoning as inference to the best known explanation.

Strength – quick to the answer. Usually a clear pathway of delineation. Leverages strength of diagnostic data.

Weakness – Uses the simplest answer (ergo most likely). Does not back up its selection with many key mechanisms of the scientific method. If an abductive model is not periodically tested for its predictive power, such can result in a state of dogmatic axiom. Can be used by those who do not wish to address clarity, value or risk, as an excuse to avoid undertaking the process of science; yet tender the appearance that they have done so.

Chief Mechanism: Occam’s Razor

“All things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one.”

Inductive Reason

/Logical Inference/ : is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given combined with its ability to predict outcomes.

Strength – flexible and tolerant in using consilience of evidence pathways and logical calculus to establish a provisional answer (different from a simplest answer, however still imbuing risk into the decision set). Able to be applied in research realms where deduction or alternative falsification pathways are difficult to impossible to develop and achieve.

Weakness – can lead research teams into avenues of provisional conclusion bias, where stacked answers begin to become almost religiously enforced until a Kiuhn Paradigm shift or death of the key researchers involved is required to shake science out of its utility blindness on one single answer approach. May not have examined all the alternatives, because of pluralistic ignorance or neglect.

Chief Mechanism: Consilience

“Multiple avenues of investigation corroborate a provisional explanation as the strongest.”

Chief Mechanism: Predictive Ability

“A provisional model is successful in prediction, and as it is matured, its predictive strength also increases.”

Deductive Reason

/Reductive Inference/ : is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion. This includes the instance where the elimination of alternatives (negative premises) forces one to conclude the only remaining answer.

Strength – most sound and complete form of reason, especially when reduction of the problem is developed, probative value is high and/or alternative falsification has helped select for the remaining valid understanding.

Weakness – can be applied less often than inductive reason.

Chief Mechanism: Ockham’s Razor

“Plurality should not be posited without necessity. Once plurality is necessary, it should be served.”

Chief Mechanism: Consensus

“Several alternative explanations were considered, and researchers sponsoring each differing explanation came to agreement that the remaining non-falsified alternative is most likely correct.”

And the astute ethical skeptic will perceive that this last quote relates to the true definition of consensus.

TES Signature

† Abductive, Inductive, and Deductive Reason definitions – are modified from their approximate definitions provided by Wikipedia, in its series on reasoning and logical inference.

June 25, 2017 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

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.

It is my contention that the crisis in the skepticism community today, derives its energy from one single issue. The internet is forcing hard questions upon skeptics. Not questions of scientific conclusivity (which is part and parcel to they fantasy they maintain); rather questions of ethic and philosophical merit. Media is no longer a one-way street. Questions are being asked back, in the face of the old proclamations of certainty. Have you really examined this issue? Do you perceive that you might be conducting advocacy for answers which are assumed, or profit-fueled or might be causing harm to the innocent? Have you really asked a scientific question? Are you sure all this hullabaloo is about ‘knowledge’?

The heart which remains focused on itself, eventually tires of itself. This realization is one of the critical first steps we all face in the journey to maturity as a human being. Often, such a weariness is followed with an examining of self by means of the following questions:

1.  Could I be mistaken on this?

2.  If I was mistaken, would I even know?

3.  If I was mistaken, who could I have helped harm?, and

4.  How do I go about honestly addressing the above risk, and correcting that which I find wrong?

If you have not seriously challenged yourself with these questions, stop reading this blog now – and more importantly, stop pretending to know skepticism. This is the point at which the fake skeptic takes the first step in standing down the concealed temper tantrums dressed up as science. This is the point at which they become disillusioned with the ‘skeptic movement’.  All science contains error and all humans add to and greatly amplify such error. Once we observe this, we begin to dismantle the podium upon which our younger mind placed the self-scientific poser. If you are going to err, err in the favor of precaution, mercy and advocacy on behalf of those innocent who are placed at risk. Err in favor of the honest observer, those unnecessarily accused and that which is ignored by those who act most assured of themselves. You may be wrong 25 times, but even being right 1 in 100 times, finally and satisfyingly places your life in a reference frame of joy and usefulness. This will dissipate:

Skeptive Dissonance

/philosophy : pseudoscience : ethical dissonance/ : the difficult to articulate or grasp, cognitive discomfort experienced upon one’s first perception of the disconnect between fake skepticism and real or effective science. The discomfort one experiences in overcoming a former fake skeptic anosognosia. Usually considered the first step in ethical skepticism.

What You are Departing

The following is the protocol/approach of the fake skeptic – the handiwork of the darkened heart, which has demonstrably failed to advance mankind even one small step – serving to produce only the fruits of polarization, ignorance and scientific illiteracy. In order to undertake the journey of ethical skepticism, one’s first step of self examination usually involves not doing this:

  1. Issue the authorized conclusion; usually the first answer they are taught
  2. State a memorized one-liner
  3. Boast about ‘evidence’ or ‘science’ or ‘facts’
  4. Focus on only ‘the enemy (you)’ personally thereafter; usually in a clique/menacing/insulting demeanor
  5. Exhibit a life dwelling in feckless issue advocacy, soft meaningless targets selected to inflate their club status; unqualified by any scientific question or research;  bereft of a heart for mankind or the risks born by the innocent and vulnerable. Champion of nothing but their own childish tantrum-concealing ego.

The first three steps are a costume they wear in order to make their way to the real goal, Step 4. Step 5 is the habit of the anosognosiac fake skeptic.

Ethical Skeptic Faith

Yes, we all love science, and yes – I eagerly anticipate being shown to be wrong on this incredible journey. But now I know that I can trust you too; that we are on the same team. You will find that the dissonance fades as you progress. Congratulations, you are on your journey.

June 12, 2017 Posted by | What is Ethical Skepticism | , , | Leave a comment

Sign Posts on The Road Less Traveled By

One who’s boots bear the mud of the road less traveled by, should carry also a loam of ideas less thought of.

Today’s blog involves simple musings over Robert Frost’s poem, The Road Not Taken.

TWO roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

This bifurcation stands as metaphor for the fantabulated drama of self-deception which the bromidic mind plays upon those who fall prey to its choices for their lives.

You see, Frost was lamenting the snare of commonplace experience; the de rigeur mud clung fast to the boots of those who all to frequently chose the road not taken.

You perceived yourself to be an edgy rebellious urban young person, but then proceeded to do exactly the same thing that every one else did. They call it rationality in the circles where the fakers rule thought. Each perceives himself as poetic hero, choosing boldly the path not taken – only to find in reality that the hero’s every step, every word, every thought, his or her every brave deed – all of the original vim and vigor he so earnestly judged to be harvested as gold from deepest settlings of pure soul – was canned, processed, packaged and swallowed as a manufactured product. Not only was their every action not of their own crafting, but each had been done, thought, expressed and believed millions to billions of times over. The road not taken betrays itself to be in actuality, the path most frequently followed – so oft traversed as to become itself, trite, hollow and clichéd.

Do you hear the chuckling of unseen mocking, bemused by such pretense? You see, a man can accept the ill fate of his choices, the wages of risk and a life served fearlessly; but what he cannot accept is to find that in the end, his suffering constitutes simply the latest meaningless bray in a long line of unheeded cautionary lore. No battles won, no hills surmounted, no dragons vanquished. Simply another sword and bones bleaching upon the heap of banal and spent humanity. The danger in our mind resides not simply in its ability to create phantoms of credulousness; instead, its greatest weakness expresses through a habit of creating mirrors which serve to echo reality back upon itself. To reassure the passenger that all is as was originally understood – an understanding which compels us to the pass the infection on to others.

This our most insidious of illness; a pathology of unfamiliarity gauged only through its illusions of symptomatic wellness.

In Frost’s poem, there exist two roads: 1. the road less traveled by, and the subject of the poem, 2. the road not taken. You see, Frost’s poetic hero chose the road less traversed upon, so the road he elected to decline, was, quod erat demonstrandum, The Road Not Taken.

Skeptic’s Tell

One who’s boots bear the mud of the road less traveled by, should carry also a loam of ideas less thought of.

/philosophy : argument : deception/ : a skeptic who has examined them self first, should never seek out dispute, fail to seek some essence of understanding, straw man, used canned explanations and party agendas, find entertainment in argument nor mock objective dissent in order to provide an ideological advantage for favored views. Instead, the seasoned skeptic should actually go into the field and dispassionately observe, be an autodidact despite their education background, bear new thoughts along with a compassion for those harmed, foremost. These are the sign posts on the road less traveled by; the telltale sign of whether or not one is a true skeptic.

Sign Posts One Should Have Read on The Road Less Traveled By

 1. He chuckles at the impending gravitas of a ‘disagreement’.

2. The loneliness of the path less traveled, earns one a deep appreciation for engagement and understanding.

3. One who has fallen victim to harmful misrepresentation, will wish to place no one else in the same predicament.

4. The feet weary of such heterodox scramble and scaled mountain, seldom find arguing to be invigorating entertainment.

5. Anyone who has traversed the road less traveled should possess some ideas less thought of.

6. He cannot help but be an autodidact; fully realizing that this is ironically the essence of every learned and wise man.

7. His realization is that it is certainty, which is killing us more assuredly than is the unknown.

8. If you were once on the right and switched over to the left path, then you should

a. understand the path you departed, much better than do your peers (never allow straw man), and

b. possess a keener understanding of why you are on the path which you have chosen, as compared to your peers – who simply inherited it (never use canned, memorized or scripted party talking points).

9. Stand in the gap for those who are harmed, above all else.

10. Always smile; never mock.

These are the signposts one has read, if indeed they have taken the path less traversed. The majority of those who claim such – wishfully clamor on the whitewashed bones of commonplace destiny.

May 30, 2017 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism | , | Leave a comment

Nurturing the New Mind: The Disruptive Nature of Ethics

Everyone lies. Even so, 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. The Ethical Skeptic does not know what a god even is; nor does he possess all knowledge and wisdom. However, he can easily spot a monkey with a gas can. Even and especially if that gas can serves to intimidate via means of institution, socialized rationality or specious claims to science, evidence or truth. Inside this awareness, several telltale character traits, life signatures, differentiate the poser elitist from someone who can be trusted. This is his threshing floor – upon which he exercises the disruptive nature of ethics.

monkey with a gas canTo a degree, ethical skepticism can be viewed as a method of exercising a New Mind. It involves a keen survey of the landscape of animal, primate and human behavior, along with an understanding of how these roles, tactics and strategies of both survival and inhabitance, have played into our success as a species. It also involves (as does true skepticism) a keen understanding of the pitfalls of each strategy and how such pitfalls might manifest in our lives inside the societies in which we dwell. Everything of merit possesses a relevant range of application, outside of the bounds of which, even the best strategy can devolve into a practice oriented towards power; producing deception and suffering. Remember, that to a sentient intelligence species, deception-based ignorance and suffering are the same thing – one is simply the expression of the other. Lacking of knowledge is not a sin. The withholding of knowledge and denial of the right to thrive is a sin. This is a key tenet of ethical skepticism. It is not so much bunk we are fighting, as bunk will eventually falsify itself in a free information environment, rather cultivated ignorance. The ethical skeptic gets this, the small mind, no matter how rational, does not.

The Knowledge of God and Not-God

Let’s take a step back and examine the myth outlaid in the Torah, a myth which has for right or wrong, ruled much of our foundational understanding of good and evil as a western superculture. A condensed version of manuscripts taken from an older Levantine religion (I suspect from which the Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite lineage spawned) now included in what we call The Bible. In the renamed condensed later manuscript now called Genesis, we see in verses 3: 22 – 24 (NASB):

Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the Tree of Life, and eat, and live forever”— therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the Tree of Life.

Now I have found manifest in my years working with nations and corporations all over the globe, that man possesses a serious dearth in ability to distinguish good from evil, nor even cozen a coherent definition of each thereof. What man understands is ‘proper’ and ‘improper’. These are simply popular constructs relating to socialized rationality. Hence the persistence of malicious religions, governments and corporations – entities which thrive on ‘rationality’ but do not serve its goals necessarily; rather ultimately their own. Were we to recognize them in the context of true good and evil, possibly we could work to mitigate their deleterious effects. But we cannot even recognize such effects, even if we did possess a knowledge of good and evil at the outset. No, we are their prey – seriously falling under the contention that we must have eaten from the Tree of Lack of Knowledge of Good and Evil, were there such a mythical flora indeed. The bottom line is that the Bible is wrong, we do not know what good and evil is. We know harm, proper and improper. That is all. Perhaps our fall after all, simply resides in our presuming of skill at good and evil discernment in the first place.

Just think to yourself, what if your family dog one day licked an electrical socket and suddenly obtained the mental clarity to ascertain your true nature and celestial position as a human being? What if in a bought of tragic rift, your beloved pet, the furry creature who used to greet you at the door with such abandon, excitement and love each day after work, became knowledgeable about just who and what you were? What if he understood that you did not really kill and prepare the food you so faithfully gave him? What if he understood that you routinely lie to your parents in order to placate them? What if he understood that you had to betray a friend and take full credit for a paper that was partly her idea, in order to make the next step in your career? What if he understood that you destroyed a friend and former lover, in order to chance a relationship with someone more attractive – and it all collapsed in a heap of angst and broken hearts? What if he knew that you habitually tolerated or promulgated lies between 10-200 times every single day – along with the rest of humanity?¹ And even lived in a state of denial of even doing so, lying even to yourself? But never mind this, what if your faithful dog – suddenly possessed even the slightest understanding of who and what you are? He would hold then the wisdom of the Knowledge of God and Not-God. He might even bite you and leave.

He would be wise to you, and no longer serve in the faithful role in which you both previously existed. Bad dog…

Everyone lies. Even so, 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. The Ethical Skeptic does not know what a god even is; nor does he possess all knowledge and wisdom. However, he can easily spot a monkey with a gas can. Even and especially if that gas can serves to intimidate via means of institution, socialized rationality or specious claims to science, evidence or truth. Inside this awareness, several telltale character traits, life signatures differentiate the poser from someone who can be trusted. This is his threshing floor.

The ethical skeptic knows that it is often those who adhere to the most strict appearances of honesty – who can produce the most corrupt manifestations of ignorance and suffering. They can be known by hints derived from their motivations.

Standing Up to The Monkey with the Gas Can

Ethics are therefore disruptive by this very principle alone; and in an evolutionary context actually, eruptive. And in as much as this comforting metaphor of the family dog can serve to exhibit the crucial relationship between knowledge and control, even so we as thinking and discriminating beings can fortunately now examine the playing field inside which we reside. Our task is to become more than simply the smart but formerly obedient dog.  In so far as Pamela Meyer has outlined in her work “Liespotting,” the ability to spot lies in other people;¹ even moreso, the task at hand for us the ethical skeptics, is understanding the conditions when someone is pretending to the role of God in our lives. And trust me, it is not just mainstream religion which is pretending to this role. Primates seek power, pleasure and entitlement by any means they can – and uber-correctness, fake humility and social rationality can serve as great cover for such foibles.

First however, let’s examine the transitional role which primates have played in the evolution of consciousness and conscience. The stacked hierarchy of tactic and strategy inside the reality of the need to survive or thrive within this physical realm in which we find ourselves. A New Mind may perceive itself as an unwilling participant inside the grand play in which it holds a role. And whether self-deception, illusion or none of the above, it is of no matter. The reality is that we survey this landscape nonetheless.

Perhaps two examples from the natural world, the first from the Jane Goodall Institute and the second from the work of animal psychologist Penny Patterson of The Gorilla Foundation, can suffice to elicit this graphic below. (As a note, I would ignore the abysmally incompetent, paltry and biased writeups in Wikipedia on both these matters as the authors of those entries were merely doing amateurish hackjobs, and not true research expose on each topic – so the entries are useless as information other than nominal facts and fake skeptic viewpoints on the matter):

[One Chimpanzee named Mike (1938 to 1975) began a strategy of dominance through employment of a gas can.] One day as Mike was batting a gasoline can around, the loud thuds and irritating banging noises it produced resulted in a few of his fellow chimpanzees running quickly away from the strange object and the noise it produced. Mike understood this to mean that he had found a means to intimidate his fellow chimpanzees. Mike began to practice his new brand of display with two cans bouncing off trees and earth as he went running madly down the path with hair standing erect, shoulders pushed back, and face molded into a fiercely determined look. Chimpanzees cringed in fear as they heard his noisy approach and saw him running at them. They scattered off the path and out of his way.

Large high-ranking males fled up the tree trunks when Mike began his descent down the forest path slapping, kicking, and smacking three cans in front of him! The other chimpanzees had never seen or heard anything like it. It was as if the worst thunderstorm had erupted and Mike was directing it toward them. They shrieked and tried desperately to get away from him and the terrible rattling and banging noise the cans made as they flew down the hill in their direction. Not wanting to fight with the unknown, the males of Mike’s community acquiesced. Mike became the first alpha male ever to employ his brain rather than his brawn to govern his community. One year after Mike began his unusual display, he attained the position of alpha male.²

Successively then, let us regard a tale of Koko the western lowland gorilla, the primate who has single-pawed overturned our understanding of the primate mind.

Like most people, Koko has good behaviors and bad behaviors. Like most people, she takes credit for the good behaviors and blames the bad ones on someone else. The cat [All Ball] came in handy on one particularly destructive day. When no one was around, Koko managed to rip a sink out of the wall in her habitat. When the humans returned, they asked Koko who ripped out the sink.

Koko signed, “The cat did it.”³

What this indicates is then, the death of the idea of glorified but fallen-sinful humanity, and the introduction of the idea that our vulnerabilities, our proclivities for both illicit and legitimate gain – are simply expressions of natural strategies to survive and thrive. They are natural, albeit higher DNA based manifestations of expression. We were simply blinded to this by entities pretending to the role of God in our past. Bluffing into a form of control, or what might reside inside the blue levels of the primate pyramid below. Below, I have constructed a graphic depicting the less-than-dramatic schism between humanity and the natural realm, along with the challenge resident in the mind of the ethical skeptic as to how we progress from this problem of philosophy (Social Skepticism), and onto the next step. What I call, The New Mind.

The Heirarchy of Natural Competitiveness

Traits of the New Mind

sci literacyThe decision as to whether control, coaching and conscience are sufficient to the task of fostering The New Mind, or whether or not to apply the draconian measures of culling and conversion, wholly resides inside another camp altogether. So for purposes of this blog, let’s assume that coaching and conscience are the tactics which provide for success in crafting of The New Mind. In that context, for the ethical skeptic, the matter is not simply one of determining liars and lies. Everyone lies. This is the reality of the natural realm inside which we reside. Pretending to be able to counter all the proclivities of the natural realm is a matter of magic, self aggrandizement and boast. Our task is NOT to detect every single lie which is uttered, and swell our egos in a virtual cocoon of correctness. Such a state stands itself, manifest as a sort of lie of its own crafting.  The key for the ethical skeptic is to detect when lies become institutionalized, when they begin to manifest suffering on a small or even grander scale.

The question on the mind of the ethical skeptic is “How do we get to the New Mind?” And more importantly, how do I take control of my intent and begin to serve a New Mind in myself? This is the essence of becoming an ethical skeptic. To become a skeptic of one’s self, and others – in so far as spotting the character traits of one who is – or is not – residing inside this New Mind:

  • Tenacious
  • Possessing gumption
  • Incessantly curious
  • Nurturing
  • Transparent but not full disclosure
  • Compassionate
  • Does not seek tenure nor guaranteed power and comfort
  • Willing to re-invest/risk
  • Altruistic
  • The ability to know when to not be altruistic
  • Possesses a “Value for Vision” and a “Vision for Value”
  • Hard working but not seeking entitlement
  • Balanced
  • Disruptive, firm but fair in the face of god proxies
  • Does not instinctively seek to insult
  • Examines self first
  • Does not wear fake humility as a costume
  • Does not wear social conformance as a costume

humble costumeThese are the hallmarks of the person who can be trusted, and not whether they have ever made a mistake – nor pondered pseudoscience. A person who has overcome themselves, and further then realizes that the goal of life is not simply to be happy, judgemental or controlling – and especially to not pull off primate tricks in order to amass such pleasure. Rather, possesses the quiet focus to be steadfast, faithful, compassionate, hungry and firm in the face of elite thirst for power. In a world of primate tricks, corruption, collusion and control – such traits are innately disruptive.

Epoché Vanguards Gnosis.

TES Signature

¹  Meyer, Pamela; “Liespotting: Proven Techniques to Detect Deception”; July 2010; Pamela Meyer.

²  ChimpaZoo; The Goodall Institute, Chapter 21: “Mike the Alpha Male”;

³  “A Conversation with Koko”; Nature (1999) The Gorilla Institute; – as reported through Natural News; Mike Budrant; Jan 19, 2013;

August 31, 2016 Posted by | Institutional Mandates, What is Ethical Skepticism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Seven Features of Great Philosophy

Within the Riddle of Skepticism is revealed the very nature and role of philosophy.

For me, seven character traits serve to formulate the basis of an important new philosophy. Much of this set of principles revolves around the same tenets which serve to identify good science, innovative ideas and serviceable patents. Philosophy, despite the problem of philosophy as identified by Karl Popper, is no different. Venerable thoughts should exhibit certain beneficial and ethical traits in service to mankind – regardless of whether the domain context is legal, governing, mathematical, scientific or philosophical in nature. In each of my blogs, I strive to meet these expectations for my own work. I don’t always hit the mark – but I will say it is very easy to find examples of philosophy which violate each of these tenets. We all have a long way to go.

Seven Features of Great Philosophy

The Seven Features of Great Philosophy

1.  Distinct – Serves in an incremental or open critical-path role

2.  Cogent – Is focused, concise, meaningful and useful

3.  Novel – Has not been fairly addressed before

4.  Non-obvious – Not really obvious to the average philosopher

5.  Adeptly Addresses Prior Art – Leverages or fairly modifies prior philosophical work

6.  Not a Rhetosophy – Not developed to feature nor protect an agenda

7.  Teachable – Can be effectively communicated and sustained

And that being said, I leave you now with Ethical Skepticism’s “The Riddle of Skepticism”

The riddle of skepticism

TES Signature

August 5, 2016 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism | | 3 Comments

%d bloggers like this: