The Objective of this Blog: Promote Ethical Skepticism, Decry Methodical Cynicism
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)
It is the intent of this author and of this blog site to propose afresh from its beginning, a genuine problem in philosophy.
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.
For reasons which serve eliciting this construct, you will find that I remain focused inside this blog on ideas, and not necessarily on the more alluring but distracting aura around events, popular controversies or persons. Moreover, while I rely heavily upon the excellent work inside the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/) 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 of my own. They constitute ideas derived over three decades of hard-earned and deep philosophical global life exposure. You will find that I assemble these foundational principles and then move a step further by leveraging or developing them into maturity with regard to understanding errant versus valid skepticism.
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. These fundamental bad philosophies and habits of Bernaysian belief engineering, methodical cynicism and denial have served to underpin the origin of much conflict, ignorance and suffering on the part of greater mankind.
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)
Accordingly, 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 a group who clamors 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. 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.
One 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. The context of ethics employed here is deontological in as far as the adherence to standards of protocol, such as the real scientific method, are regarded as the standards suitable 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 a subset of science, and I feel it is abused when applied in lieu of science by journalists, stage magicians, propaganda bloggers, psychologists and party/social activists. Just to make my position clear, I am an evolutionist and an ignostic. I side with science in the matters of global warming, speciation and the origins of the universe. 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 on the part of Social Skepticism. I am a forthright critic of this pseudoscientific, malevolent and power hungry movement.
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 to block 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 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 work – serving to produce only the fruits of polarization, ignorance and scientific illiteracy:
- Issue the authorized conclusion,
- State a memorized one-liner,
- Boast about ‘evidence’ or ‘science’ or ‘facts’
- Focus on only you personally thereafter (usually in a clique/menacing/insulting approach).
The first three steps are a costume they wear in order to make their way to the real goal, Step 4.
They could care less about the subject and more about doing harm to you or your family. My intent is to remove the ‘me’ from the discourse and to remain focused on the purported topic. That is my keenest desire – to help find the answer to the mystery at hand. This is the reason this blog focuses on ideas, both philosophical and topical in nature, and not on persons or events.
Constituting more than simply armchair weltanschauung, Ethical Skepticism is something I have learned though an 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 correct/good deeds, 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 ranked 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 global economics, materials science, medical and clinical technology, trade, taxation, corporate mergers and national infrastructure. I have 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. I advise the United States government on the selection and release of specific high technology patents into US commerce, as well as recommend the target channel/vertical/specific company recipients for those patents. My companies work diligently inside humanitarian businesses supporting healthcare, access to medicine, energy, food and clean water in several troubled nations. I have served my country as a Director level, SCI/Black Top Secret Compartmented Intelligence Officer, working closely with the White House, NSA, CIA and US Embassies globally. I was ranked consistently in the top 1% of this professional peer group. 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, in the top 0.1% of all frequent fliers. I have been shot at, nearly knifed, crawled through deserts and jungles in nearly every continent, defended 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.
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.