The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance


twitter banner 3

So Why All This Hullabaloo Then?

The philosopher finds himself in a different position [from the physicist]. He does not face an organized structure, but rather something resembling a heap of ruins (though perhaps with treasure buried underneath). He cannot appeal to the fact that there is a generally accepted problem-situation; for that there is no such thing is perhaps the one fact which is generally accepted. Indeed it has by now become a recurrent question in philosophical circles whether philosophy will ever get so far as to pose a genuine problem.
Nevertheless there are still some who do believe that philosophy can pose genuine problems about things, and who therefore still hope to get these problems discussed, and to have done with those depressing monologues which now pass for philosophical discussions. And if by chance they find themselves unable to accept any of the existing creeds, all they can do is to begin afresh from the beginning.
 Karl Popper, “The Logic of Scientific Discovery” (1934)

znvy9max-jpg-largeIt is the intent of this author and of this blog site to propose afresh from its beginning, a genuine problem in philosophy. A problem of method-induced creeping ignorance wrought in the name of science.

With the exception of inalienable natural rights, philosophy, despite standing as the foundation of science, cannot be abused to supplant or act in lieu of the methods of science. Skepticism, as a critical facet of philosophy, is likewise bound by this construct. Much of our false skepticism and scientific pretense today stems from a misunderstanding of or ignorance around this key principle.

Philosophy however, is a tar baby; as in the moment you jeer philosophy you have pretended to the role of philosopher. Then why not do it well? And while I run the risk exposure herein of conducting an expressed rhetosophy, and accordingly examine my own steps with a skeptic’s eye for this misrepresentation by means of locution; nonetheless I feel it to be of greater importance to foster public understanding of our errant versions of methodical cynicism and false skepticism than retreat into presumed parsimony. A personal regard of such urgency that I hold this clarity as paramount over the otherwise obscuring or red-herring effect that events of the day or persons seeking more than their 15 minutes of fame might serve to impart. So for myself, becoming a philosopher is a must therefore. The fundamental bad philosophies decried in this work, the habits of Bernaysian belief engineering, methodical cynicism and pseudo-skepticism, have served to underpin the origin of much conflict, ignorance and suffering on the part of greater mankind.

Many find this site to constitute a hard read. This is purposeful. The Ethical Skeptic is not crafted for the casual reditt waif nor subscriber to Skeptical Inquirer. It is not going to be equivocally worded, nor posed in such a way as to talk down to people. You can find a cache of common sense one-liners somewhere else. Instead this blog is written for those with ‘soul in the game’; they who bear the fortitude to suffer, appreciate and comprehend the precision of technical writing, driven forth by a passion in searching for Popper’s treasure buried inside. This site contains a graduate level of philosophy and beyond; featuring an ethic which venerates heroes based on their ideas and not their antiquity nor academic repetition. Accordingly, you will find a relative dearth of respect for ancient Greek and Christian Reformation philosophers. I created this site for those who have encountered the wall of dissatisfaction in their maturation as a doctor of philosophy – a dissonance which silently broods in the minds of captive, oppressed and real, scientists.

If a man’s thoughts are to have truth and life in them, they must, after all, be his own fundamental thoughts; for these are the only ones that he can fully and wholly understand. . . . a man who thinks for himself can easily be distinguished from the book-philosopher by the very way in which he talks, by his marked earnestness, and the originality, directness, and personal conviction that stamp all his thoughts and expressions. The book-philosopher, on the other hand, lets it be seen that everything he has is second-hand.
 Arthur Schopenhauer, “On Thinking for Yourself” (1851)

What I have to say in this blog constitutes a genuinely novel, non-obvious to the artisan, teachable and isolate problem of philosophy, developed from mankind’s prior art inside the subject. Five of the seven critical factors that make for great new philosophy. I will also strive to make this work cogent and agenda free as much as I can. Nonetheless, what I have to say in this blog is also quietly on the minds of curious citizen and scientist alike. Good minded people who grapple with an inner dissonance. A difficulty explaining just why they possess discomfort with the bien pensant who clamor to dominate and promote one set of ideas; and while possessing scant experience or credential, claims to speak on behalf of science. They instinctively get what I am saying here, but have found frustration in articulating this dissonance. And in this regard, I seek to disambiguate ethical skepticism from its misrepresented skeptical straw man. In this regard as well, I am not the only ethical skeptic.


There is a quiet, educated, rational and determined movement afoot. It stems from this dissonance. It is not a movement fomented by pseudo scientists or religious minded persons; rather, it is a movement of conscience, on the part of people just like me. Science and Engineering professionals who, while persons who apply skepticism daily in their STEMM professions, are raising the warning flag of concern that some of our peers have begun to stray off course.  They, along with specific groups of overzealous and immature laymen, have been misdirected by oligarch minded groups into invalid avenues of institutional, ends-driven control. At some point along the line, the sincere skepticism movement, featuring the cogent and persuasive arguments of leaders like Christopher Hitchens and Carl Sagan, was hi-jacked by the corporate socialist West, who found a new use for this pit-bull terrier group – a group which they could employ to do harm, yet impart no liability risk to their organizations in the process. A bitter lesson they learned in the 1960’s and 70’s concerning their malicious advocacy conduct. They put ‘skepticism’ to work to shield from accountability, pharmaceutical/media/healthcare/agri/food companies, oligarch industries, political parties and academics seeking social and political power. The bandwagon was led astray by vigilante social activists, posing as science, promoting specific social epistemologies, a failed form of socio-economics, the rule of elitist neo-fascism, and a new unacknowledged religion, all falsely in the name of science. In the midst of observing this change, as a sincere skeptic I began to struggle with a creeping and irresistible discomfort with where the movement was headed.

The purpose of this blog is not to side with any particular argument inside a valid topic of pluralistic contention. Rather its purpose is to defend plurality when it exists, along with the integrity of the knowledge development process; to highlight preemptive efforts and methods employed in blocking science on the part of this invalid form of skepticism.  The purpose of this blog is to elicit light into the unethical habits of this group of false skeptics, and to serve as a resource for its victims. Do I believe in Homeopathy, Bigfoot, UFO’s and ghosts; the ridiculous litmus tests of the Social Skepticism movement?  No.  I do not hold beliefs around these topics, in contrast to those who partake of fake skepticism. There exists plenty of bunk inside them, and appropriately there are plenty of people around who hold those subjects accountable.  Yet who holds Social Skepticism accountable? They possess no mechanisms of peer review nor accountability, which could preclude their being abused as a tool by control-minded influences. They bully the public through media ridicule, character defamation, intimidation, social pressure and gleefully enacted ill behavior to such an extent that scientists and media will only speak against the movement in private.

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

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

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

Ethical Skeptic Faith


Who is The Ethical Skeptic?

anonymity in the face of violent suppression of ideasOne should not infer from the term ‘Ethical Skepticism’ a personal boast of morality, as those who are ignorant of graduate level philosophy are prone to accuse; rather comprehend it as an intellectual and practical allegiance to an actual long held standard of science. After all, this is what ‘ethics’ means, adherence to standing professional standards of practice. The context of ethics employed in this blog is deontological in as far as the adherence to standards of protocol, such as the real and complete scientific method, are regarded as both sufficient and necessary to direct our knowledge development actions. An idempotent neutral practice, characterized by an aversion to tampering with observations and data in favor of one’s ontology. Yet, still consequentialist from the perspective that the outcomes of value and clarity manifest as the signature handiwork of those who practice such ethics. In my profession and research skepticism is the substrate of science, and I feel it is abused when applied in lieu of science by agenda-schooled journalists, stage magicians, propaganda bloggers, psychologists and party/social activists.

Just to clarify my positions, I am an evolutionist and an ignostic atheist. I side with science inside the matters of climate change, speciation and the origins of the universe as we understand them. I am pro-GMO and pro-Vaccine – I have recommended specific vaccine programs as a critical step in some of my national health strategies for developing nations. I have campaigned hard, and met face to face with THE heads of state, in order to promote acceptance of agricultural foods from our country into several G8 nations which refuse them. However I have also witnessed first hand the damaging impact by those who employ the permissive moniker of science to enact all manner of greed, harm and malevolent decisions on all our behalf. Science is not a license for a few oligarchy seekers to do whatever they want to the public. Inside a free nation, science must ever operate inside the public trust. Moreover, this applies to skepticism as well. I am a person who employs true skepticism, and refuses to adopt the mandatory religion, politics and economic views which characterize the 768 specific conclusions of surety, foisted as proved science on the part of Social Skepticism. I am a forthright critic of this pseudoscientific, malevolent and power hungry movement.

For reasons which serve proposing a genuine problem in philosophy therefore, you will find that I remain focused inside this blog on ideas, and not necessarily on the more alluring but distracting milieu around events, popular controversies or persons. That set of distracting personages includes myself. Some people contend that being anonymous is indicative of an aversion to engage and be accountable for opinion. I disagree. Small minds in the ‘skeptic community’ focus on harming those who hold differing opinions, afraid in reality to play on the real playing field of quality of thought; preferring instead to jeer specific opponents from the protection of the crowd of posers and sycophants. Holding a whip of social conformance is never an act of courage. Moreover, while I rely heavily upon the excellent work inside the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ( as well as foundational philosophers such as Wittgenstein and Popper, along with modern documentarians Rosen, Nozick and Reese; nonetheless the super-majority of the thoughts presented herein are original thoughts and works of my own. They seek to place risk in epistemological conjecture; to challenge the status quo. These constructs constitute ideas derived over three decades of hard-earned and deep philosophy-altering global life exposure. A life framed in courage. You will find that I assemble these foundational principles and life experiences, then move a step further by leveraging or developing them into maturity with regard to understanding errant versus valid skepticism.

Constituting more than simply armchair weltanschauung, Ethical Skepticism is something I have learned though this arduous and world-exposed professional experience base. I am an observer of the methodology of corruption, tracing and documenting its subtle habits even if I happen to agree in many instances with the conclusions of those who practice it. Errant methodology will always legitimize itself through a public display of stooge dismantling or virtue signalling, but will always eventually produce desired surreptitiously errant outcomes. These errant outcomes then further directly relate to ignorance, stagnation and suffering – in that order.  This is a law of social dynamic I have observed in many of my client nations. It is this same-styled methodology of rules gaming and junta mentality which suppresses many nations as de facto colonies, starving and sick. In the same way, the corrupted methods of Social Skepticism relegate its victims (all of us) to a purposeful state of ignorance on many subjects. A poverty of intelligence awash in a sea of correctness, marooning any idea which directly threatens the new religion they are seeking to enforce, Nihilism; and the sociopolitical goals it entails.

I am involved professionally in science on a daily basis, but do not claim to be a scientist myself. Rather, I am a graduate degreed science and engineering professional, alumnus of the #1 ranked science and engineering school in the Nation, and am further then regarded by that prestigious University as one of its top graduates.  I have started as founder or co-founder, and built/owned/operated a number of STEMM companies; employing hundreds of scientists and engineers in the process. Working daily for decades in close quarters with my colleagues in several firms, we have published over 1200 reports, many of them groundbreaking studies in national economic development, materials science, systems engineering, data warehousing and intelligence analysis, medical and clinical technology, trade and commerce verticals, corporate operational mergers/rollouts and national infrastructure. I have helped structure new groundbreaking trade markets and developed food, medical and infrastructure strategies for the largest nations on the globe. I both chair and fund an endowment at my alma mater for financially disadvantaged students, as well as advise its post graduate schools on what industry needs most from new graduates. I have advised several G8 world leaders, several US Senators, and 4 other heads of state globally in my respective professions.

Strategies I have directed for my clients have backed the most successful category killer brands on the planet and ascertained direction for some of our largest nations on the globe; they have been touted as the smartest moves in decades by several large and familiar corporations. One 3 year brand and market strategy I directed in particular, was awarded the highest global award achievable for such work. I have served my country as a top 1% ranked Naval Officer, combat experienced, command qualified, and highly sought for the most premium operational flag-level billets available in the United States Navy. I have served as a Director level, SCI/Black Top Secret Compartmented Intelligence Officer, working closely with the White House, NSA, CIA and US Embassies globally. I have managed research labs which developed groundbreaking science on behalf of stakeholders including investors, royalty agreements, partners, scientists, sponsors and clients. I have traveled the globe extensively for decades, holding 4 million frequent flier miles. Several of my past companies have worked diligently inside humanitarian businesses supporting healthcare, access to medicine, energy, food and clean water in several troubled nations. I have been shot at, nearly knifed, crawled through deserts and jungles in nearly every continent, worked to defend people oppressed by junta, performed surveillance on pirate businesses and succumbed to horrid sickness in the third world, negotiated with hostile and friendly tribal leaders, surveyed child/sweatshop labor operations and sourcing, been held at at gunpoint by mercenaries and juntas, traveled clandestinely across borders and run afoul of criminal mafiosi. My skills set includes observing and elucidating the habits of those who practice injustice as a matter of power protocols.

I am certainly not an expert on everything, but you will find few people on this planet who have touched as many disciplines, worked as hard, seen or accomplished as much, and observed as many paradigm shattering things in their life. It is not that smart people believe weird things, but rather what I observe among scientists of the highest ethical acumen: they are wise in their application of intellectual integrity. At some point inside a doctrinal array of conclusive arguments, the ethical mind must eventually broach dissent, and question the nature of linear thinking certainty in asymmetric, partially understood systems. Mindlessly falling prey to a bandwagon effect does not qualify one as rational nor as a critical thinker. You cannot justify the corruption of mind with a series memorized one-liners. As my favorite professor in Standard Model particle physics used to say, “It is not simply the correctness of your answer I want you to express, rather demonstrate the rigor and quality of your thinking.” The rigor and quality of our thinking has been sacrificed at the alter of authorized correctness masquerading as science.

Never use skepticism as an excuse to dissuade anyone’s life from expressing its full extraordinary potential, especially your own.


Which Posts Should I Read First?

Why I Don’t Golf

…or why living a trivial or socially scripted life is anathema to the mind and heart set free.

Ethical Skepticism – Part 2 – The Riddle of Skepticism

Explained how Ethical Skepticism is a clarity and value oriented assemblage of the best of Philosophical, Empirical and Cartesian Skepticism developed in side a Kuhn Theory of Revolution context, focused on employment of the entire scientific method, not simply the experimental method.

Ethical Skepticism – Part 9 – Skeptive Dissonance

The heart which is only focused upon itself, eventually tires of such a subject. There exists a discomfort one experiences in overcoming anosognosia. This is considered the first step in the journey of ethical skepticism.

Ethical Skepticism – Part 5 – Ethical Skepticism and The Real Ockham’s Razor

The actual role of Ockham’s Razor, the real scientific principle, is to begin the scientific method, not complete it in one felled swoop. Rational thinking under Ockham’s Razor (ie. Parsimony) is the demonstrated ability to handle plurality of argument with integrity. The ability to wield great ideas and not drop them through incompetence.

The Appeal to Skepticism Fallacy

The contention, implication or inference that one’s own ideas or the ideas of others hold authoritative or evidence based veracity simply because their proponent has declared themselves to be a ‘skeptic’ is not simply inherently flawed as an argument, but deleterious and ignorance-promoting as a method.

The Tower of Wrong: The Art of Professional Lying

The contention, implication or inference that one’s own ideas or the ideas of others hold authoritative or evidence based veracity simply because their proponent has declared themselves to be a ‘skeptic’ is not simply inherently flawed as an argument, but deleterious and ignorance-promoting as a method. This as a precis to the full inventory of tactics in deception:

The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation – A compendium of fallacy and corrupted thought commonly employed inside Social Skepticism

Nurturing the New Mind: The Disruptive Nature of Ethics

It is the legitimate role of the New Mind to not simply detect lies, but moreover to dethrone those entities which pretend to the role of God. An ethical skeptic does not possess all knowledge and wisdom. However, he can learn to spot a monkey attempting to intimidate others with a gas can.


Is Ethical Skepticism Really Different?

Do you ever get a sick feeling after reading a typical ‘skeptic’ article or blog? Like you have to go take a shower to wash off all the false intelligentsia, politics, god-hatred, arrogance and seething disdain for people who are not acceptable to them? I do all the time. Yet I trudge through their false science drivel for one reason – to help inform others as to the subtle nature of distinction between real skepticism and their form of snake oil agenda promotion.

Many years ago I advised a group seeking government approval of a certain controversial technology. I was hired to advise them on process; the process of seeking legislative approval for the broad scale application of that technology. I let them know up front that I would certainly advise them on correct process, but this did not mean that I could vouch for the scientific accuracy of the claims of both their large corporation, nor those in opposition to their technology. I would remain in a skeptically neutral state – solely and earnestly desiring the scientific research to continue on the subject, and the members of that community to have their say, not just me. We enlisted the aide of a certain member of that legislature to help us negotiate the wickets of the legislative process. He was a champion for our representation before the committee, passionately standing in session advocating the review of the technology in question, and working alongside both myself and the large company liaisons to gain admission to a specific legislative floor hearing. When the question arose as to the validity of the hearing, this member voted ‘Yes’ before the legislative committee.  Many members followed him. The hearing was approved. My client was very pleased.

When the day came to vote on jurisdictional application of the technology, when the actual vote was to be had, our champion member of the legislature, now no longer representing process, rather representing the voice of his constituents, voted against approval of the technology.  My clients were aghast at the apparent betrayal. But as a post graduate trained philosopher, I understood that what the legislative body member had done, was in fact an ethical act. He fought for the right of that technology to present its case, for the right of its sponsors to appeal for more research and for their day in the ‘court of science’ if you will.  He fought for this right despite the fact that he also, ethically had not come to the conclusion that the technology was safe for broad scale application just yet.

The legislative member was not anti-technology, he was not duplicitous, and he did not betray the technology sponsor. He simply from a basis of sound character, neutrally allowed the technology its day before the legislative hearing. He wanted the pluralistic argument to have its day in the court of legislative review, despite his current questions about the technology.  He was an ethical skeptic.

Today’s skeptics seek to block the legislative hearing of matters which are petitioning for a state of Ockham’s Razor ‘plurality;’ the fairness under which they can obtain their day in the sunshine in the legislative court of science. Today’s skeptics are the unethical members of legislature, not even elected – rather self appointed, who are so threatened by the matter of potential approval, that they will seek any means, dark, social, dirty or misleading, in order to block ethical matters of scientific legislative process. This in an effort to enforce their religious views on society, through a cleverly interwoven abrogation of science and method. To steal the mantle of responsibility out of the hands of science, and rest it squarely into their prejudiced hands, circumventing the processes of responsible science, which is the property of us all. To intimidate the actual legislative members and threaten them with professional death if they speak up.

This is how corruption works in third world, suffering nations.

Social Skeptics wear SSkepticism as an identity, apply intimidation and doubt only to subjects they disdain, and enforce an embargo regarding any and all observations or science which might serve to undermine their Cabal authorized ontology. They eschew data collection; instead undertaking social activism and unethical activity, any means necessary to enforce the ‘right answer’ and secure the power of their sponsor institutions. Social Skeptics abuse skepticism to act in lieu of science, not as subset thereof.

Like many people, I did not choose a STEMM career, just to jump from the old sin/god based religion which was forced on me as a child, and directly into a new religion. I originally chose a STEMM career as a choice of ethic. To re-establish in my life that which is un-known, to pursue an insatiable curiosity, to remove fear, instill the broader sense of wonder, and smile again at the ethos of the natural realm. In graduate school, when I was asked to take part in anti-nuclear power protests, or attend nihilist (selling themselves as free thinkers and atheists) skepticism seminars, or sit in situ at presentations by prominent religious figures to ‘represent skepticism,’ I began to feel a core of unease with such actions. I could not articulate this discomfort in graduate school, but now after decades of work globally inside of food, health, science, trade, taxation, infrastructure; both inside and outside of science, spotting the habits and methods of those who seek control of governments and people – yes, the habits of corruption; now I can articulate why I held that ethical discomfort even back in grad school.

That was the genesis of why I chose the pathway I call, Ethical Skepticism.

The Ethical Skeptic is not a creationist, nor a paranormal peddler; rather is a true skeptic – one who regards new data with receptive discipline, vetting constructs (not observations and data) under Ockham’s Razor regardless of the authorized answers we are obliged to accept and who enforces them. Just because I happen to agree with sound science, does not mean I agree with the tactics and practices of the Social Skeptics who pretend to represent science. Corruption and rules-gaming reside at every level of human endeavor and existence. Academic degrees and professional/celebrity status do not render one immune to this human foible. I don’t desire attention nor to protect myself with the shroud of representing science as do SSkeptics;  rather, I believe in original thinking characterized by ideas which should stand on their own evidential merit.  One thing however is absolutely proven: This world we live in is stranger than any novel ever written, and there exists more plurality under Ockham’s Razor than the control freaks among us would allow to be admitted.

When science does its job, The Ethical Skeptic is the first one to cheer.

But simply because scientists use skeptical thinking discipline, does not mean that skeptics therefore represent science.  The two are not congruent. We have collectively fallen for this sleight of hand.

Skepticism has nothing to do with doubt. Everything to do with curiosity and character.

False skeptics commonly have to be marginalized and ousted in order for human advancement to continue.  This is the lesson and consistent pattern of history.  

A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.—Max Planck

SSkeptics rely upon the certainty that no one will hold them accountable, nor will history recall their ill intended work; yet the Cabal will tender them glory and celebrate the brilliance of their one-liners today. Their self-purported value in improving the quality of scientific literacy is in reality, limited.  Discourse with a Social Skeptic is less about the topic and more about avenues of personal disdain, which club they can categorize you into, followed by an exercise in self-aggrandizement on the part of the role playing SSkeptic.  They are neither accountable to their victims, nor do they hold each other to standards of conduct and peer review.  An unethical social cabal, who’s detriment in obscuring and blocking breaking science, far outweighs their scant value in armchair target debunking the same 16 subjects over and over again. Their vociferous levels of disdain and smug insistence are indicative of and in direct proportion to the unsettling lack of integrity which privately haunts their conscience; their will broken by institutional violation of the mind.

I chose a long time ago, to not participate in this type of deceit. 🙂  In other words, be a true skeptic.

epoché vanguards gnosis



  1. I’ve found my people! I’m so thankful to have found this blog today. For the last 6 months, i’ve been highly pestered by a bunch of so-called “Skeptics” on Wikipedia as i edit things. They’re really like flying monkeys and they have their way with many articles, totally ruining them and making them into attack pieces for some things and promotional pieces for other things, according to their ideology. They are not real skeptics, but ideological minions well described by your blog posts here. So thank you. Yes~!

    Note that they have a campaign to take over Wikipedia — to edit articles and insert Skeptic(TM) ideology. If you search on “Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia” you’ll find their program and you can also search on “Susan Gerbic” who has a YouTube channel with speeches in which she coaches on how to edit Wikipedia to infuse a Skeptic(TM) ideology. I’ve worked hard to expose this as an ideology that is not in line with Wikipedia’s goals and policies when it’s carried too far, but gotten horrible flak in response and been topic banned from some topics as a result. It’s warfare, seriously. Need help. Send in troops.

    Comment by sagerad | February 2, 2016 | Reply

    • LOL! I about fell out of my chair laughing at your quip “I’ve found my people!”

      That is a common sentiment I hear. Many of us are concerned about religious and politically driven SSkeptics pretending to represent science on Wikipedia. I donate to Wikipedia and use it often on subjects which are not in contention. However, I have noticed that on subjects/fields where I am an expert, not only am I not allowed to post, but fake experts will delete my input and fill in a whole host of errant ‘common’ versions of knowledge on those topics. The way they screen this out is by calling input from the actual researchers to be ‘original information’ – which it is not. It is a serious problem. So, on any subject of controversy I assume Wikipedia to simply be propaganda.

      This is why I use it as a recitation resource sparingly and only on non-contestable elements of information.

      Welcome! I too have had my health damaged by glyphosate, and am underway on a program to eliminate it as best I can. I have specific physical manifestations which occur when I eat glyphosate bearing foods. So it is tough since it is hidden in just about every big-Agra and processed food in America.

      But we will win this.

      TES 8)

      Comment by The Ethical Skeptic | February 2, 2016 | Reply

  2. I have to say that I am deeply relieved to see someone who shares ethical skepticism in the same way I do. I am constantly battling the social skeptics on their remarks of everything being “pseudoscience” that doesn’t parralel with their fixed ideology. It is a sort of comradely to see others standing up to the face of pseudo-skepticism with knowledge and logic, and speaking in the eloquent language of reason. Your work is great, keep it up! It needs to be more well known and cited when arguing with “skeptical raptors” and “Orac followers” (Orac from ScienceBasedMedicine, or as I call it, “PseudoscienceBasedSwindling”). You have to give these trolls evidence, but even then whatever is presented is dismissed as being that of quackery or conspiracy, regardless of its content. Even when you give them logic and reasoning behind why the science they’re entrusting with all of their might is rigged—they will not listen. It is a constant battle to edify the public on the cozening they’ve underwent through bought “science”, but I believe ethical skeptics are growing in numbers, and the ones I know are dedicated to the cause of helping others and exposing lies of a corrupted industry meant to make us feel like any belief away from theirs is illogical. Keep up the great work!

    Comment by thestandingstoic | October 12, 2015 | Reply

    • Thanks Stoic!

      Even when you bring them evidence, they have crafted the martial art of denial inside their minds, and will never be swayed. The pathway is to simply go around them, and let them die off with time. The Maxwell Planck scientific method. The next generation will herald the work of sincere researchers as science. Notice what the ‘skeptics’ of 150 years ago said about the reality of things…. not a single correct contention in the whole offing. SSkeptics are on the run, and we are gonna ensure they run even faster.


      Comment by The Ethical Skeptic | October 13, 2015 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: