The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

Panduction: The Invalid Form of Inference

One key, if not the primary form of invalid inference on the part of fake skeptics, resides in the methodology of panductive inference. A pretense of Popper demarcation, panduction is employed as a masquerade of science in the form of false deduction. Moreover it constitutes an artifice which establishes the purported truth of a favored hypothesis by means of the extraordinary claim of having falsified every competing idea in one felled swoop of rationality. Panduction is the most common form of pseudoscience.

Having just finished my review of the Court’s definition of malice and oppression in the name of science, as outlined in the Dewayne Johnson vs. Monsanto Company case, my thinking broached a category of pseudoscience which is practiced by parties who share similar motivations to the defendant in that landmark trial. Have you ever been witness to a fake skeptic who sought to bundle all ‘believers’ as one big deluded group, who all hold or venerate the same credulous beliefs? Have you ever read a skeptic blog, claiming a litany of subjects to be ‘woo’ – yet fully unable to cite any evidence whatsoever which served to epistemologically classify that embargoed realm of ideas under such an easy categorization of dismissal? What you are witness to, is the single most common, insidious and pretend-science habit of fake skeptics, panduction.

It’s not that all the material contained in the embargoed hypotheses realm has merit. Most of it does not. But what is comprised therein, even and especially in being found wrong, resides along the frontier of new discovery. You will soon learn on this journey of ethical skepticism, that discovery is not the goal of the social skeptic; rather that is exactly what they have been commissioned to obfuscate.

Science to them is nothing more than an identity which demands ‘I am right’.

There exist three forms of valid inference, in order of increasing scientific gravitas: abduction, induction and deduction. Cleverly downgrading science along these forms of inference in order to avoid more effective inference methods which might reveal a disliked outcome, constitutes another form of fallacy altogether, called methodical deescalation.  We shall not address methodical deescalation here, but rather, a fourth common form of inference, which is entirely invalid in itself. Panduction is a form of ficta rationalitas; an invalid attempt to employ critical failures in logic and evidence in order to condemn a broad array of ideas, opinions, hypotheses, constructs and avenues of research as being Popper falsified; when in fact nothing of the sort has been attained. It is a method of proving yourself correct, by impugning everyone and everything besides the idea you seek to protect, all in one incredible feat of armchair or bar-stool reasoning. It is often peddled as critical thinking by fake skeptics.

Panduction is a form of syllogism derived from extreme instances of Appeal to Ignorance, Inverse Negation and/or Bucket Characterization from a Negative Premise. It constitutes a shortcut attempt to promote one idea at the expense of all other ideas, or kill an array of ideas one finds objectionable. Nihilists employ panduction for example, as a means to ‘prove’ that nothing exists aside from the monist and material entities which they approve as real. They maintain the fantasy that science has proved that everything aside from what they believe, is false by a Popperian standard of science – i.e. deducted. This is panduction.


/philosophy : invalid inference/ : an invalid form of inference which is spun in the form of pseudo-deductive study. Inference which seeks to falsify in one felled swoop ‘everything but what my club believes’ as constituting one group of bad people, who all believe the same wrong and correlated things – this is the warning flag of panductive pseudo-theory. No follow up series studies nor replication methodology can be derived from this type of ‘study’, which in essence serves to make it pseudoscience.  This is a common ‘study’ format which is conducted by social skeptics masquerading as scientists, to pan people and subjects they dislike.

There are three general types of Panduction. In its essence, panduction is any form of inference used to pan an entire array of theories, constructs, ideas and beliefs (save for one favored and often hidden one), by means of the following technique groupings:

  1. Extrapolate and Bundle from Unsound Premise
  2. Impugn through Invalid Syllogism
  3. Mischaracterize though False Observation

The first is executed through attempting to falsify entire subject horizons through bad extrapolation. The second involves poorly developed philosophies of denial. Finally the third involves the process of converting disliked observations or failures to observe, into favorable observations:

Panduction Type I

Extrapolate and Bundle from Unsound Premise – Bucket Characterization through Invalid Observation – using a small, targeted or irrelevant sample of linear observations to extrapolate and further characterize an entire asymmetric array of ideas other than a preferred concealed one. Falsification by:

Absence of Observation (praedicate evidentia modus ponens) – any of several forms of exaggeration or avoidance in qualifying a lack of evidence, logical calculus or soundness inside an argument. Any form of argument which claims a proposition consequent ‘Q’, which also features a lack of qualifying modus ponens, ‘If P then’ premise in its expression – rather, implying ‘If P then’ as its qualifying antecedent. This as a means of surreptitiously avoiding a lack of soundness or lack of logical calculus inside that argument; and moreover, enforcing only its conclusion ‘Q’ instead. A ‘There is not evidence for…’ claim made inside a condition of little study or full absence of any study whatsoever.

Insignificant Observation (praedicate evidentia) – hyperbole in extrapolating or overestimating the gravitas of evidence supporting a specific claim, when only one examination of merit has been conducted, insufficient hypothesis reduction has been performed on the topic, a plurality of data exists but few questions have been asked, few dissenting or negative studies have been published, or few or no such studies have indeed been conducted at all.

Anecdote Error – the abuse of anecdote in order to squelch ideas and panduct an entire realm of ideas. This comes in two forms:

Type I – a refusal to follow up on an observation or replicate an experiment, does not relegate the data involved to an instance of anecdote.

Type II – an anecdote cannot be employed to force a conclusion, such as using it as an example to condemn a group of persons or topics – but an anecdote can be employed however to introduce Ockham’s Razor plurality. This is a critical distinction which social skeptics conveniently do not realize nor employ.

Cherry Picking – pointing to a talking sheet of handpicked or commonly circulated individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring or denying a significant portion of related context cases or data that may contradict that position.

Straw Man – misrepresentation of either an ally or opponent’s position, argument or fabrication of such in absence of any stated opinion.

Dichotomy of Specific Descriptives – a form of panduction, wherein anecdotes are employed to force a conclusion about a broad array of opponents, yet are never used to apply any conclusion about self, or one’s favored club. Specific bad things are only done by the bad people, but very general descriptives of good, apply when describing one’s self or club. Specifics on others who play inside disapproved subjects, general nebulous descriptives on self identity and how it is acceptable ‘science’ or ‘skepticism’.

Associative Condemnation (Bucket Characterization and Bundling) – the attempt to link controversial subject A with personally disliked persons who support subject B, in an effort to impute falsehood to subject B and frame its supporters as whackos. Guilt through bundling association and lumping all subjects into one subjective group of believers. This will often involve a context shift or definition expansion in a key word as part of the justification. Spinning for example, the idea that those who research pesticide contribution to cancer, are also therefore flat Earther’s.

Panduction Type II

Impugn through Invalid Syllogism – Negative Assertion from a Pluralistic, Circular or Equivocal Premise – defining a set of exclusive premises to which the contrapositive applies, and which serves to condemn all other conditions.

Example (Note that ‘paranormal’ here is defined as that which a nihilist rejects a being even remotely possible):

All true scientists are necessarily skeptics. True skeptics do not believe in the paranormal. Therefore no true scientist can research the paranormal.

All subjects which are true are necessarily not paranormal. True researchers investigate necessarily true subjects. Therefore to investigate a paranormal subject makes one not a true researcher.

All false researchers are believers. All believers tend to believe the same things. Therefore all false researchers believe all the same things.

Evidence only comes from true research. A paranormal investigator is not a true researcher. Therefore no evidence can come from a paranormal subject.

One may observe that the above four examples, thought which rules social skepticism today, are circular in syllogism and can only serve to produce the single answer which was sought in the first place. But ruling out entire domains of theory, thought, construct, idea and effort, one has essentially panned everything, except that which one desires to be indeed true (without saying as much).  It would be like Christianity pointing out that every single thought on the part of mankind, is invalid, except what is in the Bible. The Bible being the codification equivalent of the above four circular syllogisms, into a single document.

Panduction Type III

Mischaracterize through False Observation – Affirmation from Manufacturing False Positives or Negatives – manipulating the absence of data or the erroneous nature of various data collection channels to produce false negatives or positives.

Panduction Type III is an extreme form of an appeal to ignorance. In an appeal to ignorance, one is faced with observations of negative conditions which could tempt one to infer inductively that there exists nothing but the negative condition itself. An appeal to ignorance simply reveals one of the weaknesses of inductive inference.  Let’s say that I find a field which a variety of regional crow murders frequent. So I position a visual motion detection camera on a pole across from the field in order to observe crow murders who frequent that field. In my first measurement and observation instance, I observe all of the crows to be black. Let us further then assume that I then repeat that observation exercise 200 times on that same field over the years. From this data I may well develop a hypothesis that includes a testable mechanism in which I assert that all crows are black. I have observed a large population size, and all of my observations were successful, to wit: I found 120,000 crows to all be black. This is inductive inference. Even though this technically would constitute an appeal to ignorance, it is not outside of reason to assert a new null hypothesis, that all crows are black – because my inference was derived from the research and was not a priori favored. I am not seeking to protect the idea that all crows are black simply because I or my club status are threatened by the specter of a white crow. The appeal to ignorance fallacy is merely a triviality in this case, and does not ‘disprove’ the null (see the Appeal to Fallacy). Rather it stands as a caution, that plurality should be monitored regarding the issue of all crows being black.

But, what if I become so convinced that the null hypothesis in this case is the ‘true’ hypothesis, or even preferred that idea in advance because I was a member of a club which uses a black crow as its symbol? In such a case I approach the argument with an a priori belief which I must protect. I begin to craft my experimental interpretation of measurement such that it conforms to this a priori mandate in understanding. This will serve to produce four species of study observation procedural error, which are in fact, pseudoscience; the clever masquerade of science and knowledge:

A.  Affirmation from Result Conversion  – employing a priori assumptions as filters or data converters, in order to produce desired observational outcomes.

1.  Conversion by a priori Assumption (post hoc ergo propter hoc). But what if the field I selected, bore a nasty weather phenomenon of fog, on an every other day basis. Further then, this fog obscured a good view of the field, to the point where I could only observe the glint of sunlight off the crow’s wings, which causes several of them to appear white, even though they are indeed black. But because I know there are no white crows now, I use a conversion algorithm I developed to count the glints inside the fog, and register them as observations of black crows? Even though a white crow could also cause the same glint. I have created false positives by corrupted method.

2.  Conversion by Converse a priori Assumption (propter hoc ergo hoc – aka plausible deniability). Further then, what if I assumed that any time I observed a white crow, that this would therefore be an indication that fog was present, and a condition of Data Conversion by a priori Assumption was therefore assumed to be in play? I would henceforth, never be able to observe a white crow at all, finding only results which conform to the null hypothesis, which would now be an Omega Hypothesis (see The Art of Professional Lying: The Tower of Wrong).

Example: Viking Mars Lander Data Manipulation

Two Mars Viking Landers were sent to Mars, in part to study for signs of life. NASA researchers took soil samples the Viking landers scooped from the surface and mixed it with nutrient-rich water. If the soil had life, the theory went that the soil’s microbes would metabolize the nutrients in the water and release a certain signature of radioactive molecules. To their pleasant surprise, the nutrients metabolized and radioactive molecules were released – suggesting that Mars’ soil contained life. However, the Viking probes’ other two experiments found no trace of organic material, which prompted the question: If there were no organic materials, what could be doing the metabolizing? So by assumption, the positive results from the metabolism test, were dismissed as derivative from some other chemical reaction, which has not been identified to date. The study was used as rational basis from which to decline further search for life on Mars, when it should have been appropriately deemed ‘inconclusive’ instead (especially in light of our finding organic chemicals on Mars in the last several months)1

B. Affirmation from Observation Failure Conversion – errors in observation are counted as observations of negative conditions, further then used as data or as a data screening criterion.

Continuing with our earlier example, what if on 80% of the days in which I observed the field full of crows, the camera malfunctioned and errantly pointed into the woods to the side, and I was fully unable to make observations at all on those days? Further then, what if I counted those non-observing days as ‘black crow’ observation days, simply because I had defined a black crow as being the ‘absence of a white crow’ (pseudo-Bayesian science) instead of being constrained to only the actual observation of an actual physical white crow? Moreover, what if, because of the unreliability of this particular camera, any observations of white crows it presented were tossed out, so as to prefer observations from ‘reliable’ cameras only? This too, is pseudoscience in two forms:

1.  Observation Failure as Observation of a Negative (utile absentia). – a study which observes false absences of data or creates artificial absence noise through improper study design, and further then assumes such error to represent verified negative observations. A study containing field or set data in which there exists a risk that absences in measurement data, will be caused by external factors which artificially serve to make the evidence absent, through risk of failure of detection/collection/retention of that data. The absences of data, rather than being filtered out of analysis, are fallaciously presumed to constitute bonafide observations of negatives. This is improper study design which will often serve to produce an inversion effect (curative effect) in such a study’s final results. Similar to torfuscation.

2.  Observation Failure as Basis for Selecting For Reliable over Probative Data (Cherry Sorting) – when one applies the categorization of ‘anecdote’ to screen out unwanted observations and data. Based upon the a priori and often subjective claim that the observation was ‘not reliable’. Ignores the probative value of the observation and the ability to later compare other data in order to increase its reliability in a more objective fashion, in favor of assimilating an intelligence base which is not highly probative, and can be reduced only through statistical analytics – likely then only serving to prove what one was looking for in the first place (aka pseudo-theory).

These two forms of conversion of observation failures into evidence in favor of a particular position, are highlighted no better than studies which favor healthcare plan diagnoses over cohort and patient input surveys. Studies such as the Dutch MMR-Autism Statistical Meta-Analysis or the Jain-Marshall Autism Statistical Analysis failed precisely because of the two above fallacious methods regarding the introduction of data. Relying only upon statistical analytics of risk-sculpted and cherry sorted data, rather than direct critical path observation.

 Example: Jain-Marshall Autism Study

Why is the 2015 Jain-Marshall Study of weak probative value? Because it took third party, unqualified (health care plan) sample interpretations of absences (these are not observations – they are ‘lack-of’ observations – which are not probative data to an intelligence specialist – nor to a scientist – see pseudo-theory) from vaccinated and non-vaccinated children’s final medical diagnoses at ages 2, 3, and 5. It treated failures in the data collection of these healthcare databases, as observations of negative results (utile absentia). A similar data vulnerability to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation System’s ‘self-volunteering’ of information and limitation of detection to within 3 years. This favors a bad, non-probative data repository, simply because of its perception as being ‘reliable’ as a source of data. This fails to catch 99% of signal observations (Cherry Sorting), and there is good demonstrable record of that failure to detect actual injury circumstances.2

One might chuckle at the face value ludicrousness of either Panduction Type III A and B. But Panduction Type III is regularly practiced inside of peer reviewed journals of science. Its wares constitute the most insidious form of malicious and oppressive fake science. One can certainly never expect a journalist to understand why this form of panduction is invalid, but certainly one should expect it of their peer review scientists – those who are there to protect the public from bad science. And of course, one should expect it from an ethical skeptic.

epoché vanguards gnosis


How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “Panduction: The Invalid Form of Inference” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 31 Aug 2018; Web,


August 31, 2018 Posted by | Argument Fallacies, Tradecraft SSkepticism | , , | Leave a comment

Malice and Oppression in the Name of Skepticism and Science

The Dewayne Johnson versus Monsanto case did not simply provide precedent for pursuit of Monsanto over claims regarding harm caused by its products. As well, it established a court litmus regarding actions in the name of science, which are generated from malice and as well seek oppression upon a target populace or group of citizens.
Watch out fake skeptics – your targeting of citizens may well fit the court’s definition of malice, and your advocacy actions those of oppression – especially under a context of negligence and when posed falsely in the name of science.

If you are a frequent reader of The Ethical Skeptic, you may have witnessed me employ the terms ‘malice’ and ‘malevolence’ in terms of certain forms of scientific or political chicanery. Indeed, the first principles of ethical skepticism focus on the ability to discern a condition wherein one is broaching malice in the name of science – the two key questions of ethical skepticism:

  1. If I was wrong, would I even know it?
  2. If I was wrong, would I be contributing to harm?

These are the questions which a promoter of a technology must constantly ask, during and after the deployment of a risk bearing mechanism. When a company starts to run from these two questions, and further then employs science as a shield to proffer immunity from accountability, a whole new set of motivation conditions comes into play.

The litmus elements of malice and oppression, when exhibited by a ‘science’ promoting party exist now inside the following precedent established by the Court in the case of Dewayne Johnson vs. Monsanto : Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of San Francisco: Case No. CGC-16-550128, Dewayne Johnson, Plaintiff, v. Monsanto Company, Defendant. (see Honorable Suzanne R. Bolanos; Verdict Form; web, below). Below I have digested from the Court Proceedings, the critical questions which led to a verdict of both negligence, as well as malice and oppression, performed in the name of science, on the part of Monsanto Company.

It should be noted that Dewayne Johnson v. Monsanto Company is not a stand alone case in the least. The case establishes precedent in terms of those actions which are punishable in a legal context, on the part of corporations or agencies who promote risk bearing technologies in the name of science – and more importantly in that process, target at-risk stakeholders who object, dissenting scientists and activists in the opposition. So let us be clear here, inside a context of negligence, the following constitutes malice and oppression:

1.  The appointing of inchoate agents, who’s purpose is to publicly demean opponents and intimidate scientific dissent, by means of a variety of public forum accusations, including that of being ‘anti-science’.

Inchoate Action

/philosophy : pseudoscience : malice and oppression/ : a set of activity or a permissive argument which is enacted or proffered by a celebrity or power wielding sskeptic, which prepares, implies, excuses or incites their sycophancy to commit acts of harm against those who have been identified as the enemy, anti-science, credulous or ‘deniers’. Usually crafted is such a fashion as to provide a deniability of linkage to the celebrity or inchoate activating entity.

This includes skeptics, and groups appointed, commissioned or inchoate encouraged by the promoter, even if not paid for such activity.

2.  The publishing of scientific study, merely to promote or defend a negligent product or idea, or solely for the purpose of countermanding science disfavored by the promoter of a negligent product or idea.

All that has to be established is a context of negligence on the part of the promoter. This includes any form of failure to followup study a deployed technology inside which a mechanism of risk could possibly exist. So, let’s take a look at the structure of precedent in terms of negligence, malice and oppression established by the Court in this matter. The questions inside the verdict, from which this structure was derived, are listed thereafter, in generic form.

Malice and Oppression in the Name of Science

/philosophy : the law : high crimes : oppression/ : malice which results in the oppression of a targeted segment of a population is measured inside three litmus elements. First, is the population at risk able to understand and make decisions with regard to the science, technology or any entailed mechanism of its risk? Second, has an interest group or groups crafted the process of science or science review and communication in a unethical fashion so as to steer its results and/or interpretation in a desired direction? Third, has a group sought to attack, unduly influence, intimidate or demean various members of society, media, government or the targeted group, as a means to enforce their science conclusions by other than appropriate scientific method and peer review.

I.  Have a group or groups targeted or placed a population at other than natural risk inside a scientific or technical matter

a. who bears a legitimate stakehold inside that matter

b. who can reasonably understand and make self-determinations inside the matter

c. whom the group(s) have contended to be illegitimate stakeholders, or as not meriting basic human rights or constitutionality with regard to the matter?

II.  Have these group or groups contracted for or conducted science methods, not as an incremental critical path means of investigation, rather only as means to

a. promote a novel technology, product, service, condition or practice which it favors, and

b. negate an opposing study or body of research

c. exonerate the group from reasonable liability to warn or protect the stakeholders at risk

d. exonerate the group from the burden of precaution, skepticism or followup scientific study

e. cover for past scientific mistakes or disadvantageous results

f. damage the reputation of dissenting researchers

g. influence political and legislative decisions by timing or extrapolation of results

h. pose a charade of benefits or detriment in promotion/disparagement of a market play, product or service

i. establish a monopoly/monopsony or to put competition out of business?

III.  Have these group(s) enlisted officers, directors, or managing agents, outside astroturf, undue influence, layperson, enthusiast, professional organization or media entities to attack, intimidate and/or disparage

a. stakeholders who are placed at risk by the element in question

b. wayward legislative, executive or judicial members of government

c. dissenting scientists

d. stakeholders they have targeted or feel bear the greatest threat

e. neutral to challenging media outlets

f. the online and social media public?

The Ruling Precedent (Verdict)

The sequence of questions posed by the Court, to the Jury, in the trail of Dewayne Johnson vs. Monsanto (applied generically as litmus/precedent):


I.  Is the product or service set of a nature about which an ordinary consumer can form reasonable minimum safety expectations?

II.  Did the products or services in question fail to ensure the safety an ordinary consumer would have expected when used or misused in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way?

III.  Was the product design, formulation or deployment a contributor or principal contributing factor in causing harm?

IV.  Did the products or services bear potential risks that were known, or were knowable, in light of the scientific knowledge that was generally accepted in the scientific community at the time of their manufacture, distribution or sale?

V.  Did the products or services present a substantial danger to persons using or misusing them in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way?

VI.  Would ordinary citizen stakeholder users have recognized these potential risks?

VII.  Did the promoting agency or company fail to adequately warn either government or citizen stakeholders of the potential risks, or did they under represent the level of risk entailed?

VIII.  Was this lack of sufficient warnings a substantial factor in causing harm?

IX.  Did the promoter know or should it reasonably have known that its products or services were dangerous or were likely to be dangerous when used or misused in a reasonably foreseeable manner?

X.  Did the promoter know or should it reasonably have known that users would not realize the danger?

XI.  Did the promoter fail to adequately warn of the danger or instruct on the safe use of products or services?

XII.  Could and would a reasonable manufacturer, distributor, or seller under the same or similar circumstances have warned of the danger or instructed on the safe use of the products or services?

XIII.  Was the promoter’s failure to warn a substantial factor in causing harm?

Malice and Oppression

XIV.  Did the promoter of the products or services act with malice or oppression towards at-risk stakeholders or critical scientists or opponents regarding this negligence or the risks themselves?

XV.  Was the conduct constituting malice or oppression committed, ratified, or authorized by one or more officers, directors, or managing agents of the promoter, acting on behalf of promoter?

epoché vanguards gnosis


How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “Malice and Oppression in the Name of Skepticism and Science” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 28 Aug 2018; Web,


August 28, 2018 Posted by | Institutional Mandates, Tradecraft SSkepticism | , | 2 Comments

The Opposite of Skeptic: Apparatchik

Apparatchik, it is the opposite of being a skeptic. The majority of our modern so-called skeptics since 1972 have been trained as apparatchiks, not skeptics. They are not simply ignorant agents, rather agents of ignorance. A class of fake skeptic which is smart enough to follow a lesson plan, but stupid enough to be insensitive to the plight of others, and to fail to observe the game of manipulation in which they have been used as pawn.

I was working with a hospital client in Ohio in 2007, just before the first official college football BCS National Championship game ever played, January 8, 2007. A group of us working in a conference room included several justifiably proud Ohio State football fans, wherein I was plied with the question, “What’s your prediction for the upcoming BCS championship game TES?”  I stopped for just a moment and then said “A rude awakening.” Florida of course went on to thrash the heavily media-favored Ohio State in that game 41 to 7 (although a mercy touchdown at the end made the final score 41 to 14). This lack of power ranking awareness on the part of many Ohio State fans and sportswriters that year elicits a foundational term inside ethical skepticism called anosognosia. Anosognosia is a deficit of self awareness that renders a subject vulnerable to being misled by propaganda and/or into becoming an apparatus of such propaganda in the first place. The anosognosiac bears the irony that they possess a greater degree of ignorance than do the very people they accuse of residing in the same state. Therefore, anosognosia is is not congruent with simply cluelessness. Anosognosia combines cluelessness, with the desire to condemn others, along with a mind bereft of its own manipulation/vulnerability. This constitutes a class of fake skeptic which is smart enough to follow a lesson plan, but not caring enough to observe the plight of others, nor their own role in contributing to harm.  For instance:

Blathering incessantly about the dangers of ‘supplements’ despite the fact that the term bears no specific meaning; all the while ignoring a National Crisis in Opioid Abuse which has raged and caused the deaths of millions of our citizens – at the hands of the major pharmaceutical giants.

Obsessing about Gwyneth Paltrow’s Advocacy on lipstick or defending agricultural food pesticide proliferation, all the while remaining silent on the priority fact that sperm counts continue their extinction event drop in Western men (Sperm Counts Drop 52% in 40 Years in Western Men).

A person who refuses to read the Overwhelming Science Linking Brain Injury, Early Frequent Immune Activation and Injected Contaminants – and declares anyone who does to be a ‘baby killer’ or ‘anti-vaxx’ – as opposed to the reality that they are simply asking for science and safety – not an elimination of vaccines. Instead they simply spout imperious propaganda, straw man and name calling.

These are not ignorant agents (the noun), rather agents of ignorance (the verb). It is not simply stupidity, but stupidity as contagion. These are persons who maintain an obdurate hatred of their fellow men – and cover it with deceptive personas of correctness, misleading others and themselves.


/psychology : self awareness : errors/ : a deficit of self awareness. A vulnerability to a sales pitch involving the ‘stupid’ versus us, on the part of those who see themselves as superior minded. This relates to the complex intricacies involving intelligence and rationality; a perception spun on the part of social skeptics which is wielded to seek compliance and social enforcement of their goals.

The principal actor inside a social club critical mass of anosognosia is a special form of pro-active cluelessness player, called an apparatchik. An apparatchik is a person who is smart enough to follow an instructed method and set of pre-prepared talking points, yet not smart enough to detect a condition of being manipulated, nor bearing skill in detecting any real or important alternative priorities. This is the opposite of a skeptic, and ironically constitutes the majority of people who call themselves ‘skeptics’ today.


/politics : propaganda : lackey/ : the opposite of being a skeptic. A blindly devoted official, follower, or organization member, of a corporation, club or political party. One who either ignorantly or obdurately lacks any concern or circumspection ability which might prompt them to examine the harm their position may serve to cause.

An apparatchik will almost always call themselves a ‘skeptic’.

Twenty Apparatchik Signals

1.  Possesses few or no ideas of his or her own crafting

2.  Is an expert or issues ‘Twelve Reasons Why’ styled arguments on an unreasonably large array of subjects in which they could not possibly hold expertise (or on one in which you hold extensive expertise and detect deception/laziness on their part – see Margold’s Law)

3.  Quickly or habitually slips into rhetoric in an effort to win an argument, rather than conducting further research

4.  Appeals to the authority of their club or argument ad populum

5.  Talks down to you, not with you

6.  Can relate few or no instances where they actually conducted hard or extensive investigative field work

7.  Seldom regards direct or extensive experience as sufficient qualification to argue with them

8.  Focuses first on the ‘facts’ or circumstantial aspects or informal fallacy around an argument – as opposed to its coherence, soundness and logical calculus

9.  Enjoys condemning people through ‘raising the specter of doubt’ (wink-wink, nudge-nudge)

10.  Subconsciously treats science as a social ranking and popularity endeavor

11.  Patrols social media seeking to embarrass targeted people

12.  Tends to adopt a cause célèbre or correctness personas/religious stances at a young age and with excessive vigor

13.  Resorts to familiar catch phrases in response to novel information

14.  Seeks visibility, club reinforcement and celebrity at every chance

15.  Is insensitive to risk, suffering or the plight of anyone different than themself

16.  Finds fault more easily in others than in themself

17.  Not really all that clever once you get past the tag lines

18.  Steers every line of reason into an inference which serves to insult or ‘anti______’ bucket-condemn persons they engage/argue with

19.  Will draw a conclusion based upon skepticism alone

20.  Their quality of life/success/achievement, does not seem to be compatible with the rigor by which they hold others accountable

The apparatchik is a pretender.  A child-mind, motivated by the Ten Pillars of Social Skepticism. It behooves the ethical skeptic to avoid such persons – as they only seek to engage with you as a means to continue their propaganda masquerade. Spend your quality intellectual pursuit time inside research of ideas which will reduce the risk and suffering born by your citizen peers – not in fighting useless fights with people who hold their position, precisely because they could not discern the core arguments of its issues in the first place.

epoché vanguards gnosis

How to MLA cite this blog post =>The Ethical Skeptic, “The Opposite of Skeptic: Apparatchik” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 4 March 2018, Web;

March 4, 2018 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Social Disdain, Tradecraft SSkepticism | , , | Leave a comment

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: