The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

Poser Science: Proof Gaming

Science begins its work based upon a principle called necessity, not upon proof. Science then establishes proof, if such can be had. Popper critical rationality as it turns out, involves more than irrefutable proof, contrary to what gaming social skeptics might contend. Proof Gaming is a method of tendering an affectation of sciencey methodology, yet still effectively obfuscating research and enforcing acceptable thought.

im-a-skeptic-burden-of-proofIn order for science to begin to prove the existence of the strange animal tens of thousands of credible persons report roaming in the woods, I must first bring in its dead carcass.  But if I bring in its dead body, then I have no need for science to examine that such an animal exists in the first place; I have already done the science.  The demand that I bring in a dead body, given a sufficient level of Ockham’s Razor necessity-driving information, is a false standard threshold for science to begin its diligence, and such a demand constitutes pseudoscience.

Now of course, Karl Popper in his brief entitled Die beiden Grundprobleme der Erkenntnistheorie contended that science should be demarcated by the proper assignment of truth values to its assertions, or ‘sentences’: ergo, science is the set of sentences with justifiably assigned truth values.¹ This was called a mindset of ‘critical rationality’.¹ It was a step above simple scientific skepticism. The task of the philosophy of science is to explain suitable methods by which these assignments are then properly made.¹ However, one can extend the philosophy of science to construct elaborate methods, which prevent the assimilation of ideas or research which one disfavors, by gaming these methods such that philosophy stands and acts in lieu of science. One such trick of conducting science research by means of solely philosophy, all from the comfort of one’s arm chair, is called Proof Gaming. Popper contended later in his work, as outlined by the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy here:

As a consequence of these three difficulties [the problem or necessity of induction] Popper developed an entirely different theory of science in chapter 5, then in Logik der Forschung. In order to overcome the problems his first view faced, he adopted two central strategies. First, he reformulated the task of the philosophy of science. Rather than presenting scientific method as a tool for properly assigning truth values to sentences, he presented rules of scientific method as conducive to the growth of knowledge. Apparently he still held that only proven or refuted sentences could take truth values. But this view is incompatible with his new philosophy of science as it appears in his Logik der Forschung: there he had to presume that some non-refuted theories took truth values, that is, that they are true or false as the case may be, even though they have been neither proved nor refuted [William of Ockham’s ‘plurality’]. It is the job of scientists to discover their falsity when they can. (IEoP)¹

Social skeptics will cite the base logic of Popper’s first work, yet omit his continued work on induction (Logik der Forschung) – as a process of sleight-of-hand in argument. So, critical rationality as it turns out, involves more than irrefutable proof, contrary to what gaming social skeptics might contend. Science begins its work based upon a principle called necessity, not upon proof. Science then establishes proof, if such can be had. Sadly, much of science cannot be adjudicated on anything like what we would call iron-clad proof, and instead relies upon a combination of falsified antithetical alternatives or induction based consilience.

The gaming of this reality constitutes a process of obfuscation and deceit called Proof Gaming. Proof Gaming is the process of employing dilettante concepts of ‘proof’ as a football in order to win arguments, disfavor disliked groups or thought, or exercise fake versions or standards of science. Proof gaming presents itself in six speciations. In the presence of sufficient information or Ockham’s Razor plurality, such tactics as outlined below, constitute a game of pseudoscience. Posing the appearance of science-sounding methods, yet still enabling obfuscation and a departure from the scientific method in order to protect the religious ideas one adopted at an early age.

Let’s examine the six types of this common social skeptic bad science method, formal and informal fallacy.

Proof Gaming

/philosophy : argument : pseudoscience : false salience/ : employing dilettante concepts of ‘proof’ as a football in order to win arguments, disfavor disliked groups or thought, or exercise fake versions of science. Proof gaming presents itself in seven speciations:

Catch 22 (non rectum agitur fallacy) – the pseudoscience of forcing the proponent of a construct or observation, to immediately and definitively skip to the end of the scientific method and single-handedly prove their contention, circumventing all other steps of the scientific method and any aid of science therein; this monumental achievement prerequisite before the contention would ostensibly be allowed to be considered by science in the first place. Backwards scientific method and skipping of the plurality and critical work content steps of science.

Fictitious Burden of Proof – declaring a ‘burden of proof’ to exist when such an assertion is not salient under science method at all. A burden of proof cannot possibly exist if neither the null hypothesis or alternative theories nor any proposed construct possesses a Popper sufficient testable/observable/discernible/measurable mechanism; nor moreover, if the subject in the matter of ‘proof’ bears no Wittgenstein sufficient definition in the first place (such as the terms ‘god’ or ‘nothingness’).

Herculean Burden of Proof – placing a ‘burden of proof’ upon an opponent which is either arguing from ignorance (asking to prove absence), not relevant to science or not inside the relevant range of achievable scientific endeavor in the first place. Assigning a burden of proof which cannot possibly be provided/resolved by a human being inside our current state of technology or sophistication of thought/knowledge (such as ‘prove abiogenesis’ or ‘prove that only the material exists’). Asking someone to prove an absence proposition (such as ‘prove elves do not exist’).

Fictus Scientia – assigning to disfavored ideas, a burden of proof which is far in excess of the standard regarded for acceptance or even due consideration inside science methods. Similarly, any form of denial of access to acceptance processes normally employed inside science (usually peer review both at theory formulation and at completion). Request for proof as the implied standard of science – while failing to realize or deceiving opponents into failing to realize that 90% of science is not settled by means of ‘proof’ to begin with.

Observation vs Claim Blurring – the false practice of calling an observation or data set, a ‘claim’ on the observers’ part.  This in an effort to subjugate such observations into the category of constituting scientific claims which therefore must be now ‘proved’ or dismissed (the real goal: see Transactional Occam’s Razor Fallacy).  In fact an observation is simply that, a piece of evidence or a cataloged fact. Its false dismissal under the pretense of being deemed a ‘claim’ is a practice of deception and pseudoscience.

As Science as Law Fallacy – conducting science as if it were being reduced inside a court of law or by a judge (usually the one forcing the fake science to begin with), through either declaring a precautionary principle theory to be innocent until proved guilty, or forcing standards of evidence inside a court of law onto hypothesis reduction methodology, when the two processes are conducted differently.

Proof by Non-falsifiability (Defaulting) – by selecting and promoting a pet theory or religious tenet which resides inside the set of falsification-prohibited constructs, SSkeptics establish popular veracity of favored beliefs, by default. Since their favored theory cannot be approached for falsification, it would be pseudoscience to compete it with other falsifiable constructs and claim it to be an outcome of the Scientific Method. Therefore the scientific method is disposed of, the non-falsifiable theory is assigned a presumption of truth, and furthermore can never be disproved. A flavor of unseatable ‘King of the Hill’ status is established for pet SSkeptic beliefs.

All of these tactics are common practices which abrogate the role and discipline of science.  Additionally, a key set of symptoms to look for, in determining that Proof Gaming is underway, are when

  1. one of these tactics is conducted inside a media spotlight,  and when
  2. every media outlet is reciting the same story, and same one liner such as ‘extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence’, verbatim.

This is an indicator that a campaign is underway to quash a subject.

The sad reality is, that on most tough issues, any one single person or small group of outsiders is poorly equipped to prove a subject beyond question. Popper recognized this later in his life work.  We simply do not have the resources and time to accomplish such a task.  SSkeptics know this and use it to their advantage.  The people who are calling for research for example on the connection between cognitive delays in children and the potential role which immunizations have had on this, are simply asking for science to do the research. The response they receive is “You can’t prove the link,” thus we are justified in waging a media campaign against you and scientifically ignoring this issue. This is Proof Gaming.  Complicating this is the fact that the issue is broader than simply MMR and Thimerosal (the majority body of current study), involving the demand for science to research the causes of valid skyrocketing levels of developmental delays, autoimmune disorders, and learning disabilities in our children. The issue bears plurality and precaution, but is answered with ignorance. The Proof Gamers who sling epithets such as “Deniers” and “Anti-vaccinationistas” and “Autistic Moms” are committing scientific treason. One should note that the handiwork of such SSkeptics is rarely characterized by outcomes of value or clarity, is typically destructive and control oriented, and is reliably made media-visible (see our next Poser Science series on the tandem symbiosis between virtue signalling and malevolence).

Hype and name calling has no place in pluralistic research, and the media pundits who commit this are practicing pseudoscience plain and simple. Once plurality has been established, the games should be over.  But not for Proof Gamers.   Attacking proponents who have done case research to call for further science (not proving the subject) for not “proving beyond a shadow of a doubt,” their contentions, is an act of pseudoscience.

This fake demand for proof before research is Proof Gaming, is an abrogation of the Scientific Method and is Pseudoscience.

TES Signature

¹  The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Karl Popper: Critical Rationalism”;

February 28, 2017 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Argument Fallacies, Social Disdain, Tradecraft SSkepticism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Word About Polls

Pollsters and those who fund them, you have to ask yourself: If 59 to 70% of the population in any given year believes that your media outlet pushes biased/corrupt propaganda† – would that not mean that ANY poll conducted in your name will automatically contain extreme levels of skewed collection data? A scientist might think so; might think so for nine specific reasons listed herein. But a deluded political group, might strategically use such an effect to their advantage. They might want to even swing an election by means of exploiting, but not acknowledging, such a bias effect. This reality exemplifies the nature of the new poll and electorate gaming underway in American politics.

70-year-old-white-femaleBelieve it or not, I actually had the nine points inside the critical redress of this blog post written a week before the 2016 US Presidential Election. However, I had not yet gathered all the material I wanted to elucidate and support each point. So, with risk of appearing to provide predictive power through having 20/20 hindsight, I want to point out several factors which notoriously influence, especially political polls, into reflecting unanticipated or purposeful bias. Pew Research has provided an excellent outline of the dangers of collection and analytical bias here. While most of this material is derived from sampling bias I have observed over the years, it does align well with, and is supported by, the Pew Research principles defined herein and in the footnotes. (1, 2, 3, 4 Pew Research)

If there existed any question about the political goals entailed inside the Agenda of Social Skepticism, let’s dispense with that notion now – a direct observation by millions of scientists and persons as a result of the 2016 US Presidential Election. It became poignantly clear in the aftermath of this election that Social Skepticism is not by any means a democratic movement.  The same tactics which Social Skepticism applies inside enforcement of their pretend science dogma (and wild claims to consensus), are the same exact tactics employed inside the election poll taking and the fake protests ongoing across the US right now. They both bear features of manipulation by agenda bearing forces and hate-based paid protests against a race, a gender, and a people. These are the same tactics employed by the shills who infest social media and are paid to push dogmatic pseudo scientific messages, all relating to one set of political goals and one single religion. These are tactics, tradecraft, signature practices developed and implemented by the same minds behind these various expressions of tyranny.

Employing that segue into pseudoscience, let us examine one tactic of social manipulation which is practiced by Social Skepticism. This tactic is the art of poll and consensus manipulation. Polls in American politics notoriously skew to the left, towards the hate and talking points agenda of Social Skepticism. They also claim to incorporate ‘science’ in their collection and statistical protocols – no surprise there. The astute American citizen has learned that nothing could be further from the case. Here are ten specific reasons why polls are notoriously unreliable, especially polls generated for the sole purpose of effecting and influencing the outcome of an election.

Poll Skewing Factors

Well known in industry, but ignored by ‘statisticians’ in highly contested or manipulated public polls:

I.  Means of Collection – bias-infusing polls use exclusively land line phones as their channel and means of respondent communication – a tactic which is notorious in excluding males, mobile professionals and the full time employed. (2 Pew Research)

II.  Regional Bias Exploitation – call sampling is conducted in the New England states or in California, reflecting a bias towards tax oriented businesses, such as healthcare, insurance, government offices, and the corporations who work and contract with such agencies. (4 Pew Research)

III.  Bradley Effect – people have a tendency to express opinions and intent which fit a social pressure model or keep themselves out of the ‘bad guy’ bucket when polled on polarizing issues. This tends to skew polls notoriously to the left. (1 Pew Research)

IV. Crate Effect – impact of persons who purposely give the opposite response as to what they really think because of animosity towards the polling group (especially if non-free press) and/or their perceived history of bias, and/or animosity towards the circus around elections or the elections themselves. This false left leaning bias is generated most often inside groups who believe media outlets to be left-leaning and unfair. (5 Political Hay)

V. Crate/Bradley Power Effect – the misleading impact of the Crate and Bradley Effects falsely convinces poll administrators of the power they hold to sway the opinion of ‘undecideds’ and misleads their sponsors into funding more and more polls which follow the same flawed protocols and traps. (5 Political Hay)

VI.  Trial Heat – the overall pressure which is placed on respondent results based on the structure of or questions inside the poll itself (1 Pew Research)

a.  Leading preparatory questions – employing questions which are pejoratively framed or crafted to lead the poll respondent, in order to skew undecided voters, prior to asking the core question, and

b.  Iterative poisoning – running the same poll over and over again in the same community and visibly publishing the desired results – akin to poisoning the jury pool.

VII.   Form of Core Questionasking different forms of THE CORE question than is implied by the poll, or different question by polling group. 1. Who do you favor, vs. 2. Who will you vote (will vote) for? vs. 3. Who do you think will win? (3 Pew Research)

VIII.   Follow Through Effect – only 35 to 55% of people who are polled, on average, will actually turn out to vote. (6 2016 General Election Turnout)

IX.  Oversamplingdeclaring a bias to exist in a population a priori, in the larger S pool from which an s sample is derived. Then further crafting a targeted addition of population members from S, to influence sample s in the opposite signal (direction and magnitude) from the anticipated bias. (1, 4 Pew Research)

X. Influencing Effect – the tendency of a polling group to exaggerate polling results in favor of their preferred outcome during the influencing stage of polling, only to subsequently retract such collection/analysis tampering at the end of a polling period so that their final tally aligns more in sync with the actual outcome, or anticipated final results (fictus scientia – see at end of this article).

democracyIronically, item IX above, Oversampling is typically addressed in the Notes section of the polling analytical reports. However, such oversampling signal compensation typically only is practiced as a means to address prima facia and presumed S-pool biases, and rarely reflects any adjustment attributable to items I – VIII above.

Until polls are conducted by low profile, scientific, unbiased collection and analytical groups, and not these agenda-laden parties listed below, they will continue to mislead – and to be used as a lever in this pretense to effect a political end-game. For the record, below are the polls indicating both the retraction-back-to numbers the day before the election (reflecting the shock of the early voting results which had them pare back their wild landslide victory they had predicted for Clinton). In other words, the poll models never actually resulted in the final November 7 differential – as that was a manual intervention in panic – so that the models did not look so badly errant in the end.

A note about models and prediction:  If you adjust and tweak your model or its parameters, so that it now results in numbers which are more in concert with actual early return data – you have not increased the predictive reliability of your model. Simulation and modeling professionals get this – poll statisticians do not.

Enjoy a laugh, but remember – these are the same people and the same methods, which are employed to advertise to you what it is indeed that scientists think. (7 Real Clear Politics). But such conclusions are derived with much less confidence bearing methods of data collection, as are even election polls. Also, for the record, as of Feb 16th 2017 at 11:03 am PST, the final outcome of the popular vote was Clinton 65,853,516 – Trump 62,984,825; a 2.2 percentage point Clinton edge, with respect to the number conventions used below. So no one below really got the final results right, with the exception of the conservative IBD/TIPP tracking poll for a Trump Clinton race only. (Source: CNN Election Results Update, 2/16/2017 Election update).

The average Clinton skew (below right column) was 6.7% in favor of Clinton during the course of the polling and election influence timeframe. The final poll results then un-skewed back to 3.3% by the time of early returns voting. Where the poll ended does not count since, that is a display to save scientific face (fictus scientia). It is where the poll resided during its influencing timeframe, which counts. What is clear, is that the polling firms were exaggerating their Clinton lead results by a 2:1 magnitude during the critical opinion influencing period. Then subsequently retracted to a 1.1 point actual unacknowledged bias or 2.6% end state methodological bias.

Actual Final 2016 Election Result                                                               Clinton +2.2             (average skew = 4.5 points left bias or a 8.7% error rate or bias)


TES Signature

†  The 2015 State of the First Amendment Survey, conducted by the First Amendment Center and USA Today; 7/03/2015

1  Pew Research: U.S. Survey Research, Election Polling;

2  Pew Research: U.S. Survey Research, Collecting Survey Data;

3  Pew Research: U.S. Survey Research,, Questionnaire Design;

4  Pew Research: U.S. Survey Research,, Sampling;

5  Political Hay: How Poll Bias Obscures Trump’s Likely Election;

6  2016 General Election Turnout Rates;

7  Real Clear Politics

November 11, 2016 Posted by | Institutional Mandates, Tradecraft SSkepticism | , , | Leave a comment

Spotting the Humpty Numpty

A Humpty Numpty fixates on the exercise of convincing themselves how smart they are and how well they understand everything around them – inside an incredibly vast array of topics. The goal is to certify how superior they are to a targeted disdained group. But the sad reality is that it is never really about the topic under discussion, the topic is really: them. This is a modern pandemic form of neurosis self-obsession, falsely represented as being a ‘skeptic’ or ‘science enthusiast’.
One should examine them self first, before undertaking the courageous path of science.

When the Numpty is Humping the Elephant

Six Blind Scientists and a Skeptic

The question of Ethical Skepticism is not one of skillfully dismissing arguments and data in order to protect the understanding of the truth; or even what we perceive to be the ‘most likely truth.’ This constitutes simply an exercise in convincing ourselves how smart we are, how well we understand everything around us and how superior we are to a targeted disdained group. This is a modern pandemic form of neurosis. An ethical skeptic eschews such character temptations. I don’t give a damn who is right or wrong, I want to know the truth as best we can get to it.

Truth-accrual embodies in ethical skepticism, such questions as:

1.  If I was wrong, would I even know?

2.  If I was wrong, would this allow for harm to occur or continue?

3.  Can I examine my opponent’s contentions honestly, and state them back to them fairly?

4.  Have I really fairly examined studies which countermand my position? Do I even admit they exist?

5.  Is my ‘rationality’ simply a cover-game to obtain social or professional acceptance?

6.  Have I relied too much on MiHoDeAL claims?

7.  Have I gone into the field and actually looked for myself?

8.  Am I getting my jollies from the argument, and not the alleviation of suffering?

Talebs I Y IIn ethical science, one seeks to give competing explanations a fighting chance until falsified on their own through accrued Popper verity – and NOT by means of how clever we are. After all, for many skeptics, indeed the agenda is the most important thing on their mind. Or in the case of the numptant, the focus is really and finally – never about the topic – it is fixated solely and squarely upon the real agenda: them, their superior ability to be correct-over-you at all times.

The numpty is simply humping the elephant as an exercise in self-gratification. They have no desire to find out what the elephant is at all. Humpty Numpty.


/philosophy : pseudoscience : neurosis : self-obsession/ : a person who is educated or intelligent enough to execute a method, memorize a list of key phrases/retorts or understand some scientific reasoning, yet is gullible or lacking in circumspection to where they are unable to understand the applicable deeper meaning/science, the harm they cause nor their role in being manipulated inside propaganda. A numptant, or ‘numpty’ can be discerned through the number of subjects about which they like to argue. This indicating a clear preference not for any compassion or concern regarding any particular subject; rather the superior nature of their own thinking, argument, adherence to rationality and compliance inside any topic in which they can demonstrate such. Science, or the pretense thereof, is a handy shield behind which to exercise such a neurosis.

The purpose of this journey of self-examination, the journey of the ethical skeptic – is to seek out and mature with regard to vulnerabilities which serve to harm both self and mankind. The Ten Pillars of Numptancy:

I.             Social Category and Non-Club Hatred
II.            Narcissism and Personal Power
III.           Promotion of Personal Religious Agenda
IV.           Emotional Psychological Damage/Anger
V.            Overcompensation for a Secret Doubt
VI.           Fear of the Unknown
VII.          Effortless Argument Addiction
VIII.         Magician’s Deception Rush
IX.           Need to Belittle Others
X.            Need to Belong/Fear of Club Perception

TES Signature

July 31, 2016 Posted by | Tradecraft SSkepticism | , , , | Leave a comment

The Warning Signs that a Social Epistemology is at Play

Take Warning: The blowhards of social epistemology are executing a warfare strategy. Be wise in how you play their game. They are seeking to do harm to people they hate. Not everything they say is wrong, but it is the social outcomes they consistently seek, which should compel one to be truly skeptical of their ‘correctness.’

The height of dishonestySocial Skeptics, view the world of science as a mechanism which can be manipulated and altered to accommodate non-scientific goals, or even promote false scientific conclusions if justified in their view by the moral authority entailed. In their ideology, science should be employed as the football which enables dictation of politics, beliefs, morals, standards of human interaction, tolerable or necessary human rights, denigration of specific races, peoples, genders, or groups, acceptable government, political parties and soft economic principles. Accordingly, there are 21 warning flags that I look for, in order to begin to sense that a social epistemology is at play.

Notice the similarity in tactics when comparing political candidate smear campaigns and the habits on the part of these fake science pundits.

  1. Gale Warning Flag of Social EpistemologyThe ‘science’ is promoted as one of the 768 correctness agenda points of Social Skepticism.

  2. A specific gender, ethnicity, non-violent belief, nation or culture is to blame, and this must be corrected through a tax or removal of their human rights.

  3. Any use of the terms ‘privilege’ or ‘justice’ or other term employed to masque racism or class hatred.

  4. The science was settled before it was ever introduced to any peers, or its victims.

  5. Evidence to the counter is squelched by non-science stakeholders (ie. skepticism, media, universities, pundits, short list journalists, etc.).

  6. Any individual or group who questions, or is skeptical or desires more research around the idea is vilified and given a pejorative moniker.

  7. Celebrity endorsers circuit the same affiliate and lecture network. They wear bowties to imply sophistry of knowledge.

  8. Forums are patrolled by attention seeking and paid trolls, trained to attack persons who express opinions afoul of the social epistemology.

  9. Legal cases challenging the epistemology are squelched and ignored.

  10. Damages caused to families, organizations and persons are tucked away quietly.

  11. No information regarding the negative side of the epistemology is published or drawn attention to in the media.

  12. The stupid people, are always and only the ones who urge caution, or issue warning.

  13. Verbatim message releases echo-chamber through skeptic outlets, blogs and tweets in about a 3 days cycle, and mostly during working hours.

  14. Large institutions, scientific organizations and universities who have a stake in the research remain quiet and defer to activist colleagues.

  15. Those who disagree are associatively condemned as ‘tin foil hat’ or ‘moon landing deniers’ or as being anti-science.

  16. Much talk about ‘the evidence,’ coupled with very little actual presentation of any evidence or knowledge of the subject at all.

  17. The ‘finished science’ is often 25 years old or older and based on very few studies, featuring zero or scant field confirmatory studies.

  18. The lede is buried in media articles, usually a deep seated thesis which is not supported by the science cited in the article, coupled with a headline reiterating the same.

  19. Click bait headlines.

  20. Lots of talk about science, but very little display of actual scientific literacy.

  21. The ‘denier’ moniker is slathered on every person who does not toe the line and talk the talk.

Social Epistemology

/philosophy : pseudo-philosophy/ When we conceive of epistemology as including knowledge and justified belief as they are positioned within a particular social and historical context, epistemology becomes social epistemology. Since many stakeholders view scientific facts as social constructions, they would deny that the goal of our intellectual and scientific activities is to find facts. Such constructivism, if weak, asserts the epistemological claim that scientific theories are laden with social, cultural, and historical presuppositions and biases; if strong, it asserts the metaphysical claim that truth and reality are themselves socially constructed.¹ ²

Moreover, in recognizing this, when social justice or the counter to a perceived privilege are warranted, short cuts to science in the form of hyper and hypo epistemologies are enacted through bypassing the normal frustrating process of peer review, and substituting instead political-social campaigns – waged to act in lieu of science. These campaigns of ‘settled science’ are prosecuted in an effort to target a disliked culture, non-violent belief set, ethnicity or class – for harm and removal of human rights.

These strong social epistemological pundits are at their essence scientific crooks.  However, they are fully aware that science, inside the key verticals of its application, in general does not accept such contortions of their professional standards.  As a result, Social Epistemologists must construct sciencey-looking pathways which tender both the appearance of protocol and method, and establish an Apparent Coherency. This Apparent Coherency is then enforced on society as a whole, with much intimidation and negativity as the final facet of its enforcement.

And as is true to form in a socially reenforced protocol set, the enormous social pressure brought to bear in the form of anger and mocking humor in a public and derisive context, stands as the signature and indeed red flag hallmark of Social Skepticism.

Apparent Coherency - Copy

TES Signature

¹  Alvin Goldman’s “Social Epistemology,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

²  Matthias Steup’s “Epistemology,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

December 10, 2015 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Social Disdain, Tradecraft SSkepticism | , , , | Leave a comment

The Dark Side of SSkepticism: The Richeliean Appeal

A Richeliean Appeal is a contention which is declared correct by means of power or celebrity held on the part of the claimant. This includes instances where ‘consensus’ is declared by those influencing the consensus itself. As well, it can involve a Richeliean skeptic who encourages and enjoys a form of ‘social peer review,’ empowered via politics or a set of sycophants who are willing to enact harm to a level which the Richeliean power holder himself would not personally stoop.

Malevolence of the Richeliean Appeal

card richelieu - Copy - CopyIf you conduct research inside an issue of contention, or have a child who has been cognitively impaired through the incompetence of medical or pharma oligarchy, or had your health damaged by processed food, or have developed a new medical device, supplement or treatment, or have even innocently shown interest towards a subject which is forbidden access by Social Skepticism, then odds are you are highly familiar with the Richeliean Appeal. A Richeliean Appeal is a form of the Appeal to Skepticism, a tactic of intrigue, malevolence, fear-intimidation, high-school style social chiding or the implicit threat which is tendered to intimidate a specific person or group. It is usually implied by those who are impressed with their own celebrity, title, or social position they hold inside of a club. Many times it comes in the form of a threat to have a social clique bully a prematurely identified victim en masse. You will see this practiced by that tiny malevolent minority who hang out on social media and undertake harm on people who think differently. They have no idea that they are a joke to the great majority of Americans, and perform a great service to swing the mind of Americans away from the very movement they espouse. Anger is a sign of losing, even if framed inside a chucklehead diversion.

Hint: Weak ideas require enforcement by childish intimidation and clique bullying. Strong ideas launch movements on their own gravitas.

Social Skeptics enjoy such a perch of bully-tactic power, and use it fully to enable authority on subjects which would stand under a condition of plurality were they to be deliberated solely on ethics and evidence alone. The term is derived from the coercive behavior of Armand-Jean du Plessis, better known as French Cardinal Richelieu (1585 – 1642 ad), heralded as the father of the modern totalitarian state, Duvalism (the dispensation of the State as equal in status to God), socialized power and the modern secret police.¹ ² It is the tandem god set (Ω • ⊕) in which the Richeliean Skeptic enjoys free unmerited power, combined with a lack of being held to accountability.

The reason that Social Skeptics abet and aspire to celebrity, is the heady power of Richeliean Appeal it affords them.

Any entity, be it person, organization or nation which derives prurient satisfaction in the cruel or public punishment of those unlike themselves, or even those who have committed an offense, is an entity of an unaccountable and malevolent nature. Such, as well is the nature of SSkeptic power used as a battering ram on those who disagree with their religion.

richelieu quote - Copy - CopySocial Skepticism appreciates many of the neutral to dark techniques employed by Armand-Jean du Plessis de Richelieu, during the secretive development of his reign of power in the French court, in its own efforts to seek consensus and consolidation of power. The issue is not that everything enforced by Social Skepticism is necessarily incorrect, nor that every enforcement action itself is necessarily wrong. Rather, it is the subterfuge by which the enforcement is dealt, coupled with the intermixing of both questionable and correct conclusion alike – the failure of the ethics which declines to distinguish between the two – which renders the approach a rogue action on the part of those seeking to consolidate power. A Richeliean Appeal can be enacted supporting a contention which is correct, or possibly incorrect. The essence of a Richeliean Appeal is that, ‘correct’ is only a designation enabled by the power of the claimant. Since the claimant is in power, or has the power to harm, therefore the contention is correct by power. This includes the power of the mob or a set of sycophants willing to enact harm to a level which the Richeliean power holder would not himself personally stoop.

Richeliean Appeal to Skepticism

/Appeal to Skepticism : coercion/ : an inflation of personal gravitas, celebrity or influence by means of implicit or explicit threats of coercive tactics which can harm or seek to embarrass a victim one wishes to be silenced. Coercive tactics include threats to harm family, contact employers, ridicule, tamper with businesses, employment of celebrity status to conduct defamation activities or actions to defraud, or otherwise cause harm to persons, reputation or property. This includes the circumstance where a Richeliean skeptic encourages and enjoys a form of ‘social peer review,’ empowered via politics or a set of sycophants who are willing to enact harm to a level which the Richeliean power holder himself would not personally stoop.

Richeliean Appeal to Authority

/Appeal to Authority : coercion/ : a contention which is considered correct by means of social power or celebrity held on the part of its proponent. An appeal to consensus made by a group which influenced or measured the claimed consensus. An appeal to an authority who is notable at least in part for authoritarian or coercive measures they have employed to maintain power. Also an employment of coercive tactics which include censorship or propaganda-charging the media, establishing a large network of internal spies or sycophants, forbidding the discussion of specific matters in public or publishing of one sided science studies, patrolling of public assemblies or media forums or seeking to harm or defame who dare to disagree.

Richelieu’s Law

/Argument : locution : coercion/ : given a sufficient quantity of statements of merit on the part of an individual, a case can be made that one of those statements either serves to condemn that individual or runs anathema to the essence of all their other statements (apparent hypocrisy). An exploitative coercive argument which proceeds along the lines of the Richeliean quote: “Give me six lines written by the most honest man and I will find in them something to hang him.”

The tactics employed by Social Skepticism which create the environment enabling the Richeliean Appeal currently include:

  • informal organizations never held to public or peer accountability – imputing no liability to corporate sponsors
  • staffed by a variety of non-science persons who volunteer time extra-professionally
  • claiming to represent correctness or the well being of the people
  • organized and personal public and celebrity ridicule tactics, attacks, defamation and tortious interference
  • attempts to blackmail, approach employers, publicly humiliate or anonymously harass
  • ‘investigators’ pretending to do scientific inquiry
  • academic celebrity promotion, agent, and publicist employment
  • scientific method masquerades, pretense of representing science
  • propaganda one liners, catch phrases, weapon words and circular recitations
  • domination of education unions and systems
  • enforcement of informal professional penalties for dissent
  • funded legal intimidation of those who dissent
  • squelching of free speech through warnings to media and celebrity intimidation
  • enlisting the aid of government agencies to enforce data screening
  • proselytization of children and intimidation of teachers
  • screening and qualification of those allowed into science and technical academia
  • media forum and publication channel policing, fabricating, intimidation and monitoring and
  • intimidation, monitoring and control of scientists and researchers

A Richeliean Appeal is Not Tantamount to Peer Review

peer review is not - CopyBy teaching that skepticism is the privilege sword of a closed group acting outside science, Social Skeptics labor under the fable that they are enacting a form of social peer review on behalf of science. Well, let’s dispense with three ideas right off the bat:

A.  Social Skeptics do not represent science, nor are they practicing scientific method,

B.  The critical assessments of Social Skeptics are not congruent with, nor do they stem from the same ethic as does peer review, and

C.  Peer review is issued inside of a discipline of expertise. A Richeliean Appeal to SSkepticism is issued regardless of the expertise of the ‘reviewer.’

Peer review results in the following categorical dispositions, enacted by an actual expert under qualified ethical circumstances:

  • to unconditionally accept a manuscript or a contention,
  • to accept it in the event that its authors improve it in certain ways,
  • to reject it, but encourage revision and invite resubmission,
  • to reject it outright.³

A Richeliean Appeal, in contrast, involves only

  • a prejudicial desire to dispense with a person or a subject
  • an aspiration to political power and celebrity influence of popular opinion
  • a focus on mechanisms of control and policing

a desire to enact harm on opposing persons and ideas. A willingness to look the other way when such activity is encouraged or effected by allies.

The idea in the mind of Social Skeptics that they are applying some kind of “peer review” by critiquing you or applying ‘critical thinking’ on various topics is fallacious in both its application and is justification. Scientist issue peer review inside of preparation for journal publishing or even after, through their credibility and status inside a scientific discipline.

SSkeptics like to contend that they are not conducting peer review because you are not their peer. The simple irony is that, in the vast majority of instances, they are not your peer, in ethic, expertise, experience, acumen nor discipline status. Do not let them play this trick.

Social Skeptics wish to emulate this status falsely and solely through the power enabled by the mob, and their celebrity status acquired therein. This is why you observe Social Skeptics continually clamoring for attention and celebrity status/noteworthiness.

Take such aspirations as a warning sign of those seeking the power of The Richeliean Appeal.

TES Signature

¹  Armand-Jean du Plessis, cardinal et duc de Richelieu. 2015. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved 12 October, 2015, from

²  New Advent: Armand-Jean du Plessis, Duke de Richelieu; Retrieved 12 October 2015;

³  Wikipedia: Scholarly Peer Review; Retrieved 12 October, 2015;

October 13, 2015 Posted by | Institutional Mandates, Social Disdain, Tradecraft SSkepticism | , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

%d bloggers like this: