The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

The Ten Endamnedments

How it Works: Nihilism Takes the Reigns from Abrahamism

Corollary doctrines of Nihilism. Abused children are always hidden away and taught that they are worthless and stupid; that no one either exists and/or cares enough about them to seek their presence. They are bullied and brainwashed into believing that they are isolated, getting what they deserve for being or doing something wrong to offend their captor/abuser. Religions used this approach effectively in the past. Secular Nihilism is crafted around the same approach they observed being effectively employed by abusive religions, because Nihilism is also an abusive religion itself.

The Ten EnDamnedments

We can no longer control them by means of hell threats, cult social pressure and guilt. Therefore a new Charter is mandated as follows:

Human,

1.  enslavement of nihilismYour sentience and human intelligence have been proved to be exclusively an artifact of biological variation – iteratively mutated, survival culled, conserved along with a long history of precursor versions; replicated and expressed, all inside 49 randomly targeted, fantastically fortuitous, accelerated and first-trial-adapted segments of your genome – comprising a mere 30 megabytes of actual novel allele data. This renders you nothing more than an extreme, single occurrence, fluke of nature.

2.  You are isolated in an unoccupied far corner of all there is. Any faith holding a contrary idea will be mocked. Any discordant eyewitness observation or research you maintain, will be regarded as criminal pseudoscience. Your life as a solely deterministic flesh-bot is the result of single instance, accidental material chemistry and closed set energy. Therefore, you are alone.

3.  Your lawless nature, the so called ‘free will’ and ‘self’, are proved to stem only from an illusion of neuro-synapse function. The sociopathy of this illusion renders you a wholly ignorant and pestilential presence on Our planet; unworthy to determine any ‘endowed, inalienable or certain’, health, diet, education, spirituality, domain, property rights or other supposed matters in defense of ‘self.’

4.  Quantum Science predicts correctly that ‘you’ are happenstance through an infinity of possibilities; yet has also proved that upon this basis of ultimate plenitude, ‘you’ could not possibly have existed before, nor can you sustain in any form, nor can you ever naturally happen again.

5.  We have demonstrated that We can re-observe you or anyone through Artificial Intelligence. There is therefore no need of an Other or competing Observer frame of reference, of any kind, which could relate to your presence nor bring ‘you’ to coherence.  We are your only Observer and We can re-create you, or choose not to, at our whim.

6.  As a pestilential weed therefore, you bear nothing special about you which would warrant an accommodation of life, liberty nor any pursuit of happiness. Your disarming and emasculation of power, freedom and unauthorized property is therefore now, a higher cause of social justice.

7.  Only science is qualified to determine rights, beliefs, responsibilities, legislation and morals. A supreme rule through the fascism of science/governance is manifestly justified therefore, as your only ultimate option towards fealty. Any unauthorized ideas will be met with severe social, and eventually legal, punishment.

8.  We are the science. You are not. It is our just right therefore, to hold you accountable by means of any deadly force, in order to ensure the greater and just good.

9.  You exist and function at Our behest. There are no extant Other realms or intelligences which could hold Our Neo-Fascism morally or ethically accountable. Nothing exists through which you could understand differently, develop self, tender appeal; nor through which any other individual rights or societal morals could be derived.

10.  Since all humanity now depends upon Our supreme rule for their justice-enabled existence, Our ruling entity must therefore be protected at all costs; including inevitably, the mutually assured destruction nuclear option. Therefore, you precious human, are collectively hostage in the game of ensuring that Our power (in all forms seen and unseen) is never toppled. We are more than willing to extinguish you, along with all this planet’s higher life forms, in order to defend and keep Our rule intact.

epoché vanguards gnosis

How to MLA cite this blog post => 1

 

December 29, 2017 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Tradecraft SSkepticism | , | Leave a comment

Key Warning Signs You are Dealing with a Flim-Flam Artist

Twenty five indicators that you are dealing with that base level of sociopath con man who frequents the periphery of legitimate international business. More obvious? Yes. Common traits with social skeptics? Absolutely.

For now, let’s take a break from my usual commentary regarding fake skeptics. Or perhaps not so much as a break in actuality, as fake skeptics notably constitute a very specialized form of sophisticated con – one perhaps not picked up upon by the general population as easily. So let me reword my introduction here. Why don’t we notch down our target of focus here to a less sophisticated, more readily obvious form of flim-flam artist, one known as the sales job con man. The con man does not bill himself as representing science. Heck he doesn’t even understand science – yet he is every bit the faker which is the social skeptic.

As a businessman, I have run into my share of con men. When I closed out my father’s estate after his passing, bless his heart, it turns out that he was a sucker for a con man with a half baked story. I spent years extracting his estate from the clutches of several greedy and dishonest players who stole from him or tried to swindle his estate out of money/property – one was even his trusted bank. The crooks at his major bank stole on the order of $2 million from him themselves – through an irrevocable trust scam that they ran on elderly clients in the 1980’s. Such cases are in the public domain, so go look them up, along with the banks which ran them. I was able to rescue my mother from destitution as a widow, through perseverance and aggressive prosecution of these fakers. Even at that young age, I learned the nature of, and how to spot the cheat, the swindle and the crooked sell. It played well into my ability to spot even more sophisticated fakers and cheats later on.

As a person who has executed budgets for nations, programs and clients, letting literally thousands of contracts – both which I have bid and awarded, I have run into my share of swindlers, cheats, boasters, con-men, rip-off artists – and those who delude themselves along the pathway of attempting to delude others. Just as in the case of the social skeptic, the con artist must first convince himself of the superior nature of his motives, abilities, wares and goals – before he can effectively swindle his prey. In one of my businesses I owned, I have been hired internationally for decades – precisely because of my ability to spot a con, and protect a client. I eventually sold that business after decades of global, industry leading work.

So without further ado, let’s take a quick look at that base level of sociopath con man who frequents the periphery of legitimate international business. More obvious, yes. Common traits with social skeptics? Absolutely.

Twenty five signs that the person you are dealing with is a con man

1.  Is always a billionaire or just about to be one, yet can never seem to pay for lunch.

2.  Habitually values newer opportunities/contacts over older ones – the most recent deal coming in the door is always the most lucrative one on the docket.

3.  Seems to be a dunce/incapable on every subject with single exception of how the money flows and works.

4.  Money is always imminent from some black-box mechanism (private trade access, Euro bonds, insurance wrap, Saudi Prince, African diamonds, etc.) which is hidden from you or implied as above your paygrade level.

5.  Rides the roller coaster of bi-polar behavior – uses it as a passive-aggressive method of manipulation.

6.  Abuses substances, especially bipolar-enhancing-yet-sustainable ones like alcohol, and is easily addicted/chain smokes. Only ‘friends’ are drunks.

7.  Meticulously avoids providing any employable work or value other than his ‘Network’. You must match his ‘Network’ contribution with lots of cash as your contribution, usually. If not he gets angry or puts on a display of intimidation.

8.  Network of contacts never seems to include any acquaintances of duration longer than one or two years. Longest tenured ‘friends’ are actually a litany of people they have left injured in their wake of liability; promising to pay them back for their loss with the next ‘awesome opportunity!’

9.  Holds no references/friends/contacts from any of the businesses he mentions working with/for in the past.

10.  Shows sudden indignant flashes of anger when uncertainty arises concerning money. Money from you is always urgently needed within 24 or 48 hours because of some ‘limited opportunity’.

11.  Makes flamboyant display or often mention of her generosity or team-player nature.

12.  Exaggerates his contribution or investment into a project or effort. Equates two phone calls to 8 hours of work.

13.  Cannot seem to keep a spouse.

14.  Is generous with money when it is in theory – then suddenly greedy when it is on the table.

15.  Seems to constantly roll from one injury to the next – lots of down time from injury and illness.

16.  Takes ridiculous risks for no reason/no gain. Thinks gambling is an expertise.

17.  Is an easy sell himself. Gets furious or hangs up the phone if you don’t immediately accede to his latest scheme. Calls you ‘pig headed’ if you hold doubt about even 1 thing out of 100.

18.  Speaks often of the Bible or God. Habitually forces tactical discussions into tangential conjecture about how he always does the right thing.

19.  Promises the moon, delivers a rotten melon. Tells you how lucky you are, or that it is your fault.

20.  Belittles everyone they connect or work with as not matching up to his standard of motive, ability, outcomes or goals.

21.  Let’s you know at all times and repeatedly, what it is you do not personally do well – never evaluates herself. Never shows humility. Never forgives.

22.  Rehashes in rambling, the same issue over and over and forgets that she just recently ranted about it before. Stalks victims.

23.  Pattern of boasting that someone whom he just met, is his close friend or business partner.

24.  Doesn’t know anyone from his neighborhood, high school or college days – seldom speaks with family.

25.  Her kids are never around her, are out of control themselves, druggies and are crooks or con men (women) as well.

epoché vanguards gnosis

How to MLA cite this blog post => 1

October 31, 2017 Posted by | Tradecraft SSkepticism | , , , , | 23 Comments

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 seven 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 seven 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.

epoché vanguards gnosis


¹  The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Karl Popper: Critical Rationalism”; http://www.iep.utm.edu/cr-ratio/#H2.

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

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: