The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

Glossary


tree-of-knowledge-obfuscation-sm
For a comprehensive categorical listing of both formal and informal logical fallacies, cognitive biases, statistical broaches and styles of crooked thinking on the part of those in the Social Skepticism movement, click here, or on the Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation icon to the left.

powerful-deny-a-vocabulary

 The Ethical Skeptic Site Glossary (and Lexicon)

A Corps Perdu – The principle of differentiating trust between two types of madman. Which madman do you trust? One who has succumbed to his impulse a corps perdu, expressing such prejudice generously inside the authority of his intimate knowledge of the mind of an infinite omni-being or even absensus based science, unquestionably promulgated and escalated by his fellows, or one who has recognized and surrendered his madness to the not sufficient, but necessary evidence at hand; being measured and compassionate in his compunction towards imparting risk upon his fellow madmen? It is sophistry only, to promote the former madness as ethical.

Absensus – if 1000 are convinced by experimental measure, that is consensus. If 1000 are coerced by social unwillingness to examine, that is absensus (see Jackboot Consensus).

Abusive Ad Hominem – usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent, including implying their lacking of critical thinking skills or rationality or membership in a pigeon hole of stupidity, which are irrelevant to the argument at hand, as a means to invalidate the arguments of the opponent. This includes an attack on a person when there is evidence to support it. The attack is still ad hominem if the attack had nothing to do with the preexisting discussion context. Also, when one rejects 100% of what a person has to say, in order to demean or categorize that person in some way. Given sufficient discussion domain, no one is 100% wrong, and such declarations are out of context of appropriate discussion and person focused.

Accent Drift – is a specific type of ambiguity that arises when the meaning of a sentence is changed by placing an unusual prosodic stress (emphasis on a word), or when, in a written passage, it’s left unclear which word the emphasis was supposed to fall on.

Acceptance Pleading – a form of special pleading or resignation through conflating acceptance of the reality of a personal circumstance or injury we cannot change, and making the most of life despite it – with acceptance of the ongoing societal mechanisms, ignorance and corrupt practices which caused the circumstance or injury in the first place.

Accident – the fallacy of applying a generally accepted rule to a particular case whose special circumstances or context render the rule inapplicable or irrelevant.

Actor-Observer Bias – in a situation where a person experiences something negative, the individual will often blame the situation or circumstances. When something negative happens to another person, people will often blame the individual for their personal choices, behaviors and actions.

Ad Feminam – is marked by the discrediting of an argument, data or observation by appealing to the apparent or assumed bias towards or irrelevant personal considerations concerning women, especially prejudices against them on the part of an opponent. Applies also in the cases of reference to minorities or the disadvantaged.

Ad Hominem Appeal to Authority – an appeal to authority which is made de facto through the disparagement of another person – typically a variation of the claim that they ‘have demonstrated that they do not understand’ an argument. Often a claim made in the case where the appeal to authority arguer fails to present evidence to support such a contention, and tenders the disparagement simply for the reason that someone possessed the temerity to have disagreed with their authoritative position.

Ad Hominem Fallacy – inappropriately citing the objections of an opponent as constituting an ad hominem attack, when the personalized objections are simply made as counter evidence to the claims a proponent has made regarding themselves. An exception occurs when the personalized objections could not have been possibly ascertained by objective research or knowledge, or are simply made for pejorative argument.

Ad Nauseam Fallacy – the intolerance of an argument or a set of data through implying that it has been hashed and re-hashed over and over so much by science or sponsors, that everyone is tired of the subject and if there were anything true to it, it would have come out and been published already.
Affirmative Characterization from a Negative Premise – believers in this subject are typically credulous, and credulous people do not command science; therefore all believers in this subject are pseudo scientists.

Ad Verecundiam – accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority. This can happen when non-experts parade as experts in fields in which they have no special competence.

Adams’ Law (of Slow Moving Disasters) – for Scott Adams, Dilbert Comic strip author. Mankind has a 100% batting average at historically averting slow moving predicted disasters.

Corollary 1 – provisional knowledge (of fake skepticism and science) always selects-for and stacks worries faster than it does realities.

Corollary 2 – taking action to address a slow moving disaster worry is not the same as planning for risk.

Corollary 3 – those who habitually stack provisional slow moving future disasters routinely fail to recognize actual existing and past disasters.

Corollary 4 – any disaster that takes longer to come to fruition than the average lifespan of an academic scientist will exhibit an underpinning of 97% supporting consensus.

Affectation of Science – an effort to appear to have a quality or understanding of science not really or fully possessed.

Affiliation Bias –  when one chooses something due to a current or past closeness, love, sentiment or affiliation with the something.

Agenda of Social Skepticism – a 200+ point set of religious beliefs, social agendas and oligarchy goals which are bundled into a mandatory platform of talking points which every SSkeptic must vehemently support through demonstrative public argument. Any doubt as to allegiance to the entire set of these points risks one’s exclusion from the protection of the Social Skepticism Cabal.

Akratic Trolling – when an advocate of an agenda plays the game wherein they will troll and provoke their perceived enemy, then suddenly retreat into the pure technical of science or atheism and adopt a holy or statesman facade when the perceived enemy objects to their behavior. This presents the enemy in the worst light possible through highlighting only one type of expression.

Amateur Confidence Fallacy – the act of substituting simple probability math to manipulate outcomes, because one does not understand the difference, or because it looks like the same thing to a layman, in instances where only confidence intervals can be correctly applied under the scientific method.

Ambiguity – the construction or delivery of a message in such words or fashion as to allow for several reasonable interpretations of the context, object, subject, relationship, material or backing of the intended message.

Amphibilogical – a word or definition which existentially bears two meanings of stark contrast, where the equivocation resides inside the term or definition itself and not inside its context of employment. Not entirely the same as ‘amphibological’ – the state of being an amphibology.

Amphibology – is a situation where a contention may be interpreted in more than one way for a variety of deceptive reasons, due to ambiguous sentence structure. An amphibology is permissible, but not preferable, only if all of its various interpretations are simultaneously and organically true.

Amplanecdote – something which has occurred a scientifically significant number or many times over, however which is ignored through agenda or by means of a baseless claim to categorization as anecdote.

Anchoring Bias – when a person is over-reliant on the first piece of information they have encountered, or begin a branch and bound search or negotiation at a starting point which is arbitrary, yet causes them cede credence to that range from then on.

Anecdote Error – a refusal to follow up on an observation or replicate an experiment, does not relegate such data to an instance of anecdote.

Angel Questions – a form of rhetoric or propaganda wherein easy lob questions are only offered to a person or organization who otherwise should be held to account. Prefabricated FAQ’s which fall in line with a prescripted set of propaganda or politically correct thinking. Questions which appear to come from a curious third party, however are scripted to hijack a discussion down an easy path of justifying the message of the person being questioned.

Anger Bankruptcy – the habit of reacting in anger on the part of a faking or immature skeptic who has painted them self into a corner logically, yet must win all arguments immediately at all costs. A habit of resorting to attacks, pejorative equivocation, insults, playground and social bullying and surreptitious attempts to harm in order to ‘defeat’ an enemy they have crafted, in the instance where they are bankrupt of reason and evidence.

Anosognosia – 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.

Antagonogenic – causing benefit as a result of or while in the process of intent to cause harm. A hacker who ironically ends up improving systems security. A leftist who influences younger generations to oppose his group, because of hate filled actions in the name of thinly-veiled virtue.

Antiquing – the attempt to impugn a subject by citing or fabricating a remote dubious history, which is then touted as representative of and/or the sole basis of the subject at large, up and to the current date.

Antiquing Fallacy – the dismissal of an entire field of data by showing its false, hoax based or dubious past inside a set of well known anecdotal cases. Also the instance where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held.

Antonesque Rhetoric – a form of rhetoric in which the arguer appears to be supporting one position; however in the same argument through locution tactics or eventually through escalating sarcasm, reveals a logical calculus or means of persuasion which implicitly yields the opposite position. From Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, a speech by Mark Antony “For Brutus is an honorable man.”

Apologetic – neutral, often scripted defense or vindication of a favored viewpoint as a defense against all forms of attack.

Apophenia Bias – the immediate dismissal of data as being manufactured, mis-analyzed, or reflecting random patterns which are ascribed empirical meaning, without having conducted the research into the data, nor possessing the background in the discipline involved in order to be able to make such a claim.

Apparatchik – a blindly devoted official, follower, or member of an organization, such as a corporation or political party. One who either ignorantly or obdurately lacks any concern over the harm their organization may serve to cause.

Apparent Epistemology – treatment or regard of underlying assumptions or implicit assumptions as proved or accepted science, typically executed through locution deception. Statements such as ‘is known to provide’ in lieu of ‘has been shown (by study X) to provide’ inside a touted epistemology. The use of social constructs, common wisdom or pluralistic ignorance based consensus as a foundation for scientific understanding or underpinning for further stacked provisional explanation.

Appeal to Accomplishment – where a position of opposition is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer, and not their merits or accomplishments inside the field in question.

Appeal to Apati Fallacy – ‘Appeal to the hoax’ fallacy of presumption and irrelevance. The attempt to impugn a subject by citing or fabricating a history or incident involving a hoax of one or more of the subject’s contentions. The fallacy resides in the fact that if it exists, there is porn of it; and likewise, if it exists or not, there is a hoax of it.

Appeal to Authority – the recitation of an individual’s (including self) opinion as constituting an empirical or rational evidence base supporting a particular contention, when in fact the recitation is only based upon the noteworthy status of the individual as an authority.

Consensus Appeal to Authority – in so far as scientists speak in one voice, and dissent is not really allowed, then appeal to scientific consensus is the same as an appeal to authority.

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

Bowel Movement Authority – one who makes a claim to evidence, expertise, authority, ability to argue or skepticism, inside a subject or bearing a knowledge base, in which every other reasonable person also has direct and regular personal expertise.  Don’t come to me claiming that your skepticism qualifies you to argue a subject – that is like claiming to be an authority in bowel movements.

Inverse Argument from Authority – because it says something in Breitbart, Fox News, ad absurdum, therefore it follows that it’s false. Inverse of Argument from Authority, possessing the same flaw.

Hypocritical Appeal to Authority – when suddenly and uncharacteristically recognizing as a recitation authority a resource figure whom one has previously or regularly shunned as an authority, simply because in the case cited, that resource happens to agree with or provide evidence supporting the proponent’s argued position.

False Appeal to Authority – the contention that the opinions of an authority contradict, appear to countermand, or reject the data, topic or ideas of an opponent when in fact either the recitation or the ideas of the opponent or both are taken out of context, misquoted or are false in their portrayal.

Ad Hominem Appeal to Authority – an appeal to authority which is made de facto through the disparagement of another person – typically a variation of the claim that they ‘have demonstrated that they do not understand’ an argument. Often a claim made in the case where the appeal to authority arguer fails to present evidence to support such a contention, and tenders the disparagement simply for the reason that someone possessed the temerity to have disagreed with their authoritative position.

Appeal to Accomplishment – where a position of opposition is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer, and not their merits or accomplishments inside the field in question.

Skeptic Appeal to Authority – using a persona who’s only expertise on a topic is that they have declared themselves to be a skeptic, or an expert of dubious credentials and/or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea. Appealing to skepticism as a basis for enforcing an idea.

Appeal to Social Skeptic – when a journalist, stage magician, author, psychologist or liberal arts activist is cited as a recitation authority on science, technology, engineering, math or skepticism as it is employed in those disciplines.

Appeal to Race/Class – in so far as it is forbidden to offend a specific race or class, yet other races’ or classes’ being offended is considered a reality of ‘freedom of speech’ then this hypocrisy is indistinguishable from an appeal to the superiority and authority of the former race or class. As Voltaire said, “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

Appeal to Celebrity Skeptic – the recitation of opinions tendered by a celebrity or prominent figure inside skepticism, as constituting authority inside a set of data; or contention that such ideas, one-liners and figures in fact constitute positions or persons of scientific gravitas. The ranking of the opinions of such figures above those of lay or professional experts in a given field.

Evidence Based Appeal to Authority – when a claim to be ‘evidence based’ is used to excuse a sufficiently large set of comprehensive claims or is tendered inside a domain with a sufficiently large unknown – it is indistinguishable from an appeal to authority. Part of Corber’s Burden.

Ad Verecundiam – accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority. This can happen when non-experts parade as experts in fields in which they have no special competence.

Imperium ex Absurdum – the appeal to god or infinity or holiness. Because god is holy, therefore you must be holy also. The recitation of an unattainable standard, which can conveniently therefore be used to condemn anyone at any time. Recitation of god or perfection as the source for one’s morals, beliefs or opinions, often tantamount to using the appeal to god to defacto establish that one’s self is, for all intents and purposes, god.

Kilkenny’s Law – final claims to expertise and evidence may be tendered inside established trade, transactional, technical and diagnostic disciplines. Therefore:

I.  A conclusive claim to evidence inside a subject bearing a sufficiently unknown or risk-bearing horizon, is indistinguishable from an appeal to authority, and

II.  Corber’s Burden: A sufficiently large or comprehensive set of claims to conclusive evidence in denial, is indistinguishable from an appeal to authority.

III.  If you have brought me evidence based claims in the past which turned out to be premature and harmful/wrong, I will refuse to recognize your successive claims to be evidence based.

Appeal to Celebrity Skeptic – the recitation of opinions tendered by a celebrity or prominent figure inside skepticism, as constituting authority inside a set of data; or contention that such ideas, one-liners and figures in fact constitute positions or persons of scientific gravitas. The ranking of the opinions of such figures above those of lay or professional experts in a given field.

Appeal to Class (Class Warfare) – using the excuse of helping lower disadvantaged strata of society as justification for one’s perfidious actions in harming everyone else or establishing power. The pretense that one’s political agendas are undertaken to help minorities, refugees or the poor, when in reality such actions more concern building power and attacking those a person hates. The pitting of class against class in order to work as a smokescreen and power mitigation tactic, inside surreptitious efforts to establish control.

Appeal to Elves – an argument which is foisted as plausible deniability employed to dismiss a perceived unlikely argument, however which itself is also virtually as outlandish and unlikely as the argument against which it is posited – moreover often implying a more sciencey, probable or possible perception in its offing. A condition of desperation in offering alternatives to a disliked hypothesis – according to the allegory of Santa Claus being a ridiculous concept, as no one could make and deliver that many toys – appealing to elves therefore as the more ‘scientific’ explanation.

Appeal to Fallacy – one of two forms of confusing the state of an assertion being in error, with positing a faulty argument, delivery or sound basis.

Fallacy Fallacy (Argument from Fallacy)  – arguer detects a fallacy in argument and declares therefore the person to be ‘wrong’ in assertion as well.  When an arguer employs either a formal, or even more an informal fallacy, to stand as the basis to declare a whole subject or assertion in argument to be therefore, false. A formal fallacy or redress on the basis of soundness or induction inference, only serves to invalidate an opponent’s argument structure. All three flaws tender nothing regarding verity of the argument’s assertion or conclusion itself, which may or may not be independently also true. As well, any instance wherein a circumstantial, expression, personal or informal critique or other informal fallacy is inappropriately cited as a mechanism to invalidate an opponent’s argument or stand as basis for dismissal of a subject.

Fallacy Error – arguer detects a condition of being wrong and incorrectly deems this condition to constitute a ‘fallacy’. When an arguer finds an argument assertion to be wrong and declares the incorrect conclusion, error, mistake or lie to constitute a ‘fallacy’. When in reality, a fallacy is nothing but a weakness or flaw in an argument, soundness, logical calculus, structure or form – and has nothing actually to do with the validity of its assertion or conclusion.

Appeal to Fear – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side or group of people who support a disdained idea.

Appeal to Hypocrisy – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position.

Appeal to Infinity (Plenitude) – a variation of an appeal to magic wherein the infinite size (or other suitably large scale) of the containing domain is posited as the all powerful but scientific rationale behind the existence of a stack of incredibly unlikely happenstance. A closure of scientific argument and refusal to consider other alternatives, especially when an appeal to infinity hypothesis is unduly regarded as the null hypothesis – and further then is defended as consensus science, without appropriate underlying reductive science ever actually being done.

Appeal to Lotto – Informing a person who has been harmed that their instance of harm is extremely uncommon (‘they won the Lotto, simply because someone had to win’ scam). A double appeal to infinity involving convincing a target regarding the personal experience involved in a remote happenstance. A million dollars just fell out of the sky in neat little stacks and then subsequently, you just happened to be the first person to walk by and observe it – two appeals to infinity stacked upon one another. Often used as a sales pitch or con job. Any instance where a ‘Law of Large Numbers’ is used as an apologetic to justify why a person was harmed or an extremely unlikely occurrence emerged.

Omnifinity – any argument which ascribes to a theoretical god, such powers, knowledge and capability such that the god in question is simultaneously able to do anything, and at the same time evade any level of comprehension on our part. This type of god is simply a placeholder argument (the ultimate special pleading) which is a parallel argument to the Infinity of the Gaps argument below. These are twin arguments, which contrary to superficial appearances, are the same exact argument. Neither one constitutes science.

Infinity of the Gaps – any argument where an appeal to infinity is simply employed to avoid the appearance of using a ‘god of the gaps’ explanation, when in reality the employment of infinity as the explanation for an infinitesimally remote chance occurrence is virtually as ridiculous or lacking in epistemological merit as is the god explanation – see Appeal to Elves.

Infinity as Science – any argument where an appeal to infinity is spun as constituting a superior scientific explanation, in comparison to, and in an effort to avoid examining the underlying assumptions which precipitated the invalid perception/belief that an event or series of events are extremely rare or statistically next to impossible in the first place.

Explanitude – the condition where a theory has been pushed so hard as authority, or is developed upon the basis of pseudoscience such as class struggle theory or psychology of sex, that it begins to become the explanation for, or possesses an accommodation for every condition which is observed or that the theory domain addresses. A theory which seems to be able to explain everything, likely explains nothing (Popper/Pigliucci).

Appeal to Magic – justifying reasoning inside an observed and constrained domain by underpinning it with rationale derived from inside another unconstrained domain. Ten quadrillion-to-one chance happenstances in series are indistinguishable from an appeal to magic. A hidden miracle is more scientific than is a professed one. Grant me one miracle and I can explain all the rest.

Appeal to Motive – a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis or a set of data or observations by calling into question the motives of its proposer. Attacking a person who is asking questions as hiding a motive or ‘JAQing off,’ in social skeptic lingo.

Appeal to Pity/Poverty/Morality (argumentum ad misericordiam) – an argument which attempts to cite the poverty level or objective refusal to seek money on the part of academics and Social Skeptics, as a way of assigning them unmerited objectivity inside a topic of pluralistic contention.

Appeal to Probability – the false contention of a skeptic that the most probable, simple, or likely outcome in a set of highly convoluted but unacknowledged assumptions, is therefore the compulsory or prevailing conclusion of science.

Appeal to Race/Class – in so far as it is forbidden to offend a specific race or class, yet other races’ or classes’ being offended is considered a reality of ‘freedom of speech’ then this hypocrisy is indistinguishable from an appeal to the superiority and authority of the former race or class. As Voltaire said, “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

Appeal to Ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent’s argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.

Appeal to Scientific Democracy – the contention that if the majority of scientists believe something to be true, regardless of epistemological merit, then it must be assumed as true.

Appeal to Scientists Fallacy – an argument that is misrepresented to be the premise held true on the part of the prevailing group of scientists; or concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to a more successful career in science.

Appeal to Skeptic – citing a skeptic as an authority, recitation or expert witness on a subject or observation, when a skeptic in reality provides no particular relevant expertise. In recitation rules, not qualifying as an authority. Under the Rules of Federal Evidence, skeptic testimony is the lowest ranked of any kind, being ranked under eyewitness testimony, not possessing any particular expertise other than a specious claim to know the scientific method, or lacking in the court’s Duty of Candor.

Appeal to Skepticism Position – the argument assumption or implication that an opinion possesses authoritative veracity or a proponent possesses intellectual high ground simply through allegiance to a consensus skeptical position on a topic.

Appeal to Skepticism Status – the declaration, assumption or implication that a consensus skeptical position on a topic is congruent with the consensus opinion of scientists on that topic.

Appeal to Skepticism Fallacy – the presumption or contention that taking a denial based or default dubious stance on a set of evidence or topic is somehow indicative of application of the scientific method on one’s part, or constitutes a position of superior intellect, or represents a superior critical or rational position on a topic at hand.

Appeal to Social Skeptic – when a journalist, stage magician, author, psychologist or liberal arts activist is cited as a recitation authority on science, technology, engineering, math or skepticism as it is employed in those disciplines.

Appeal to Spite – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people’s bitterness, spite or political orientation regarding an opposing party; or implication that certain politically disdained groups adhere universally to specific set of beliefs.

Appeal to Tradition (argumentum ad antiquitam) – a conclusion advertised as proven scientifically solely because it has long been held to be true.

Argument Abuse – argument is a set of propositions expressed with the intent of persuading through reasoning. In an argument, a subset of propositions, called premises, constraints and predicates, provides support for some other proposition called the conclusion. The nature and structure of an argument can be evaluated by four groups of measures regarding its basis, quality, type and outcome.

Argument from Celestial Intention – an appeal which cites that a contention stems from a desire to impart intent or value to aspects of the observable universe, and therefore identifies the contender as a creationist or god believer.

Argument from Fallacy – the false assumption that the simple act of catching an opponent in commission of a logical fallacy immediately invalidates all of their ideas, observations and data.

Argument from Hubris – an appeal which cites that a given contention stems at least in part from arrogance, entitlement or over-confidence on the part of the party making the contention. This argument is most often flawed in that first the appeal is a projection and assumption, and second there may be a myriad of other factors which could warrant such a theory or contention.

Argument from Ignorance – asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, or is false because it has not been shown to have any evidence.

Argument from Incredulity – the contention that because something is too difficult to imagine or possibly exist, then this is proof that it does not exist.

Argument from Self-Knowing – if P were true or false then I would know it as a skeptic; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true or false.

Argument from Silence – the pretense that the exhibiting of silence on one’s part is somehow indicative of higher intellect, ethics, rationality or knowledge and skill regarding a topic at hand.

Argument Theory – the formal and informal methods of evaluating the robust, weak or fatal nature of argument. In order of importance, the five elements are

1.  Soundness – premises support or fail to adequately support its proposed conclusion

2.  Formal Theory – strength and continuity of predicate and logical calculus (basis of formal fallacy)

3.  Inductive Strength – sufficiency of completeness and exacting inference which can be drawn

4.  Factualness – validity of information elements comprised by the argument or premises

5.  Informal Strength – informal critique of expression, intent or circumstantial features

Argumentative Definition – is a prima facia equivocation which purports to describe the ‘true,’ ‘unique professional employment’ and/or ‘commonly accepted’ meaning of a term, while in reality stipulating an irregular or altered employment of that term, usually to support an argument the proponent is attempting to force.

Argumentum Ad Baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) – a counter argument made through coercion or threats of force on the part of a Social Skeptic, via the media, one’s employment or on one’s scientific reputation.

Argumentum Ad Populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.

Argumentum Ergo Decedo – responding to criticism by attacking a person’s perceived affiliation as a shill or as a member of an activist organization as the underlying reason for criticism they have tendered; rather than addressing the criticism itself.

Arrival Bias – the tendency to tender more credibility or gravitas to information which is hot off the press or has just been introduced.

As Science as Law Fallacy – the implication or assumption that something is ‘innocent until proven guilty’ under the scientific method, when in fact this is an incorrect philosophy of hypothesis reduction.

Ascertainment Bias – a form of inclusion or exclusion criteria error where the mechanism of sampling, specimen selection, data screening or sub-population selection is inherently flawed, is developed based upon an inadequate or sophomoric view of the observations base or produces skewed representations of actual conditions.

Associative Condemnation – the attempt to link controversial subject A with personally disliked subject B, in an effort to impute falsehood to subject B though the association of some idea or keyword common to both topics. Guilt through association and lumping all subjects into one subjective category. This typically will involve a context shift or definition expansion in a key word as part of the justification.

Astroturfing – the attempt to create an illusion of widespread grassroots support for a policy, viewpoint, or product, where little such support in reality exists. Multiple online identities coordinate around celebrity siren calls, manufactured data, fake-hoax counter propaganda and shill pressure groups; all employed to mislead the public into believing that the position of the astroturfer is a socially acceptable, rational reality and/or a commonly held view.

Ataraxia (ἀταραξία, “tranquility”) – the Greek term used by Pyrrho and Epicurus for a lucid state of robust tranquility, characterized by ongoing freedom from distress and worry. The state being enabled by removing one’s self from the fear/hate/disdain cycle of religion through employment of a suspended state of judgement, Epoché.

Atheist’s Conundrum – if I research evidence which backs atheism, then I am pursuing science. If however, I research any topic which relates to a context of higher order beings, then I am a theist and have conducted pseudoscience. Therefore the only way to pursue science is to be an Atheist.

Attribution Bias – when one considers the traits of another to stem from situational factors that may affect a person’s behavior as opposed to dispositional factors; yet views their own traits as stemming from chiefly dispositional factors.

Autodidact Straw Man – accusing a person in ignoratio elenchi ad hominem, of being only self taught. Disparaging a person’s view as being insignificant or irrelevant since it was not developed under the guise of a directed academic influence.

Availability Bias – to elicit or recite opinions of only those persons that come most easily to mind or who are most familiar inside a proponent’s group, rather than a wide or representative sample of salient evidence, recitation or opinion.

Availability Error – to adjudicate the answer to questions according to the examples that come most easily to mind, rather than a wide or representative sample of salient evidence.

Availability Heuristic – to adjudicate the answer to a question according to only the information which is available at that time.

Bandwagon Blindness – when a group fails to see their own mistakes or errors inside a hot issue, usually obscured by the common spread of propaganda, and therefore must view any critique of, error or data contradiction as being the fault of opposition or outside parties.

Bandwagon Effect – the tendency to do (or believe) things because many in the Social Skeptic community do (or believe) the same. See Margold’s Law.

Base Rate Fallacy – an error in thinking where, if presented with related base rate information (i.e. generic, general information) and specific information (information only pertaining to a certain anecdotal case), the mind tends to ignore the former and focus on the latter in characterizing the whole set of relevant data regarding a subject.

Bedeutungslos – meaningless. A proposition or question which resides upon a lack of definition, or which contains no meaning in and if its self.

Begging the Point – the framing of a question from a desired answer in such a fashion that its desired conclusion is the only viable answer.

Begging the Question – falsely setting the starting point of an argument, or its foundational assumptions, such that the promoted conclusion is assumed as an inherent element or inevitable outcome of this starting position or set of assumptions.

Belief Accusing – the pejorative categorization of an individual expressing a contention into a stereotypical ‘true believers’ box pertaining to such contention. The fallacy of presumption and insult which implies that the victim is neither intelligent enough, informed enough nor of sufficiently social or credible status to merit possession of an epistemologically derived conclusion; therefore they must only ‘believe.’

Belief Bias – an effect where someone’s evaluation of the logical strength of an argument is biased by the believability of the conclusion, or suitability under their acknowledged or unacknowledged set of beliefs.

Belief vs Belief-Domain Conflation – misinterpreting identification of a belief as being based on a method of pseudoscience, as tacit permission to declare the entire belief-domain associated with the specific belief, to also constitute pseudoscience.

Bergson’s Razor – one sign that an arguer or opponent does not really understand nor care about the argument at hand or that they secretly doubt their own argument elements. This can be found inside the tactic of a discrediting refutation or disputation incorporating a multiplicity of approaches and reasons as its basis. In this case, either the opponent did not understand that only one counter is required to refute an argument, if done properly; or they did not really believe their counter point in the first place, or were only seeking to personally embarrass or discredit their opponent – and not really dialectic the issue at hand.

Betteridge’s Law of Headlines – an adage about rhetoric that states: “Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.”

Bias Blind Spot – the tendency to see oneself as less biased than other people, or to be able to identify more cognitive biases and faults in others than in oneself.

Bias Error – when using bias, fallacy or judgement error proclamations to condemn opinions of those who disagree with you, solely to push political, social or economic goals inside decision sets which are not clearly addressed by empirical or scientific backing.

Bias Inflation – a baseless claim of discrediting an observation set through identifying a plausible, relevant or even salient observer bias, which might have or did contribute to the observational profile, yet which can at most only explain a small or negligible portion of the observation base itself.

Bien Pensant – the clique of those who are deluded into viewing their educational degree or ability to ‘think rationally’ as constituting a just basis for social controls resulting in their favor. A right-thinking or orthodox person.

Bifallication – when one is forced to choose between two answers in a false dilemma, and there is a great likelihood or ignorance that both choices are also false themselves. A middle, more likely ground is ignored because of fanaticism influences and social polarization.

Bifurcation Fallacy – committed when a false dichotomy is presented, i.e. when someone is asked to choose between two options when there is at least one other option available.

Bifurcation Proof – when one makes up or spins an overly negative representation of another person’s position or a set of ideas/observations, and contends that this condemnation, and an implied sleight-of-hand bifurcation, therefore proves their own position or stands as scientific proof of their own idea.

Bigger Data is Better Fallacy – the invalid assumption which researchers make when attempting to measure a purported phenomena, that data extraction inside a very large source population as the first and only step of scientific study, will serve to produce results which are conclusive or more scientific. Any form of presumption wherein a researcher presumes that larger sample populations are congruent with more study. The same presumption error can apply to meta-analysis. When in fact such an analysis is conducted in a context of low/detached, rather than informed knowledge sets, and will serve to dilute critical elements of signal and intelligence which could be used to elucidate the issue further. This as compared to an incremental scientific method under a condition of making open context field observations first, crafting the right (rather than presumed right) question, followed by study of multiple iterations of smaller, discrete, cohort and more focused populations.

Big is Science Error – bigger sample sizes and study data is a way of bypassing the scientific method, yet still tender an affectation of science and gravitas. Any time a study cannot be replicated, and a call to consensus is made simply because it would be too difficult to replicate the study basis of the consensus.

Simpson’s Paradox – a trend appears in different groups of data can be manipulated to disappear or reverse (see Effect Inversion) when these groups are combined.

Blind-spot Bias – when one fails to recognize or attempt to recognize, or be circumspect about their own biases in side an argument or data set. To notice a bias, fallacy or error in others more readily than in one’s self.

Bonus Sive Malus – a condition of sufficiently or purposely low information wherein skepticism is indistinguishable from professional malfeasance. The propagandists’ cry of ‘the science is settled’ used in an effort to block further study from being undertaken on an issue.

Bowel Movement Authority – one who makes a claim to evidence, expertise, authority, ability to argue or skepticism, inside a subject or bearing a knowledge base, in which every other reasonable person also has direct and regular personal expertise.  Don’t come to me claiming that your skepticism qualifies you to argue a subject – that is like claiming to be an authority in bowel movements.

Box Hunting – a set of questions posed by a fake skeptic or religious person which are designed to shepherd their conversant into a predefined box of irrationality in which they wish to place them.

Bradley Effect – the principle wherein a person being polled will, especially in the presence of trial heat or iteration-based polls, tend to answer a poll question with a response which they believe the polling organization or the prevailing social pressure, would suggest they should vote or which will not serve to identify them into the wrong camp on a given issue. The actual sentiment of the polled individual is therefore not actually captured.

Brevis Lapsus – the inability to understand technical or precise writing, mistaking it for constituting a pleonasm. This in favor of simplistic writing which is, either with or without the intent of the opponent, subsequently rendered vulnerable to equivocation.

Broad or Deep Fallacy – the habit of a pretend researcher to go deep into details on a subject possessing thin evidence, or alternately as the situation may warrant, to examine only old monkey suit stories or broaden the subject being considered sufficiently enough to include numerous anecdotes of a ludicrous or dismissed nature in an effort to avoid addressing a current body of robust observational evidence.

Buchwissen – (book knowledge) the opposite end of the spectrum from an autodidact. A person who possesses scant or zero ability in original thinking, does not possess the gravitas necessary to assemble a logical calculus nor establish a set of sound conjecture from the substance of what they have learned under an academic context.

Bucket Characterization from Negative Premise – subject A is a disproved topic. As a ponderer of subject A you are therefore a pseudo scientist; and in being pseudo scientist you therefore then adhere to every other philosophy of pseudoscience and every philosophy a critical observer finds distasteful. Class stereotype disdain with fictionalized evidence.

Bundle Equivocation (Bundling) – when citing the detrimental aspects of a disliked subject, a method of deception where the cynic will list a series of likely flaws with one highly unlikely but pejorative flaw purposely intermixed in order to imply and impugn the subject targeted. Ron is slow at expression, not frugal with money or is a child molester, but we continue to evaluate Ron.

Bunk Nauseam Fallacy – the argument that a point is invalid by implying or citing incorrectly that the topic has been de-bunked many many times, and is now nothing but an irritating myth inside circles of stupidity.

Cannot be Reliably Tested Error – the malpractice of disqualifying a subject, study or researcher from science by citing that it has not been or cannot be tested or reliably repeated in testing. When in fact many conclusions of accepted science fall under such a reality. This often is achieved through blocking its access to the scientific method, ignoring the topic, conflating the scientific method with the experimental method, ignoring discovery science protocols, refusing to research/test the contention, or misrepresenting its appropriate next steps or empirical questions, and further then citing that therefore the subject has failed the necessary testing methods of science.

Carrying Someone’s Water – a fake skeptic who is surreptitiously doing someone’s bidding or serving someone’s interests, with or without their complete awareness of so doing.

Celeber Cavilla – a form of Truzzi Fallacy. A counter-claim which is specious in its assertion and usually ad hominem in its implication. However the counter-claim issuer employs it because they are under the false impression that since the accusation phrase is in such popular use, therefore the claim comes incumbent with immediate credibility in the offing, along with an assumed definition, evidence and acceptance. Very often employed in a ‘conspiracy theorist’ accusation.

Celebrity Conflict of Interest – an extreme form of epistemic anchoring or a priori bias which is introduced through a proponent’s desire to attain or maintain their celebrity status. Celebrity skeptics, pseudo-sleuths and science communicators may not even perceive that their epistemology is being imbued with a bias which tends to produce answers which favor continuation of their acceptability, club status, notoriety or income. This is the most extreme form of self inflicted coercion, ranking even above a scientific study author’s financial conflict of interest.

Certitude Exploitation – a contention (such as ‘he is biased’) which is made about a person, for which evidence has a certitude of easily being found – however which also applies to everyone, or easily explains everything or nothing about that person, in reality. In similar principle to explanitude: A theory which explains everything or bears no risk in falsification, likely explains nothing.

Channel Knowledge Flag – a skeptic who has learned their skepticism from a skeptic clique, is not one. An atheist who has learned atheism from only atheists, is not one. One who gains understanding from a single source, does not understand.

Characterization by the Undistributed Middle – a rhetorical blending of fallacy of composition and affirmation of the consequent, wherein traits shared between two distinct groups are used to underpin the claim that the two groups are indeed identical or falsely that a person in one group actually belongs in the other group. Usually a form of rhetosophy, used to support an agenda, in its conflation. All pseudo scientists promote un-vetted data, the proponent of this argument promoted un-vetted data, therefore the promoter of this argument is a pseudo scientist.

Charitable Credential Pretense – when making charitable events and promotions a visible part of one’s skeptic persona in order to deflect criticism and increase perceived personal gravitas inside targeted subjects.

Cheerleader Effect – the exploitation of the tendency for people or ideas to appear more attractive in a proactive group than in isolation.

Cheetah Skeptic – just as the cheetah is the fastest land animal, the fastest philosophical animal is a ‘skeptic’ who flees from the scientific method by means of ‘critical thinking’ when faced with any evidence or science they see as potentially threatening to the paradigm they desire to enforce.

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.

Chicory Science – science cut with attractive contestable philosophical critical bases, which are glossed over or hidden. Coffee used to be cut secretly with chicory, then people learned to like chicory coffee. While the philosophy entailed may not be wrong, or provably wrong, and it may look rich, smell wonderful and taste good, it is still not science.   Just as chicory, despite all its favorable traits, is still not coffee.

Choice Supportive Bias – the tendency to remember one’s choices and professional judgement as more educated or accurate than they actually were. When one chooses something because one has previously also selected that something in an earlier decision set.

Chucklehead Diversion – when using humor or mocking of others as a facade of appearing objective or to conceal the underlying message one is passing as not being threatening, serious or malicious in nature, when such an implication is false. Typically employed as well as a defensive lever posture of allowing accusation of any criticism bearer as needing to ‘lighten up” since they have not used humor to belie their agenda.

Circular Cynicism – the practice of ensuring that a subject never possesses any valid scientific evidence through the fallacious step of declaring it to be a pseudoscience before investigation is ever undertaken by science. Since the subject is a pseudoscience, all research by laymen can never be accepted as evidence, and since there is no evidence, then the subject is false and science should not study it, and since science will not study it and people research it with lay attempts at science, then it is a pseudoscience.

Circus Partis – a false appeal to an authority who is simply ‘famous for being famous,’ or who is simply enjoying their 15 minutes of fame in the club, and do not stand as a credible authority independent of this pseudo-status. This includes personages who are simply famous for being a famous skeptic.

Cladistic Dismantling (Deconstruction) – the definition of a malady or observed set of phenomena, into numerous ‘distinction without a difference’ subsets in an attempt to disguise or cloud noise around the overall trend in numbers involved in the malady or the phenomenon’s overall impact.

Claim or Belief as Pseudoscience Error – the incorrect assumption that a claim or belief constitutes pseudoscience, when in fact it is a claim or belief which is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, which is indeed the qualifier as to what is and is not pseudoscience. Everyone possesses ‘claims and beliefs,’ but this is not tantamount to pretend science being practiced on everyone’s part.

Claim vs Claim-Subject Conflation – misinterpreting identification of a claim as being based on a method of pseudoscience, as tacit permission to declare the entire subject around the specific claim, to also constitute pseudoscience.

Claimspoofing – a grey-zone dishonest form of stooge posing wherein one makes the false claim, that a claim (OMG!) has been made regarding a hoax or other obviously sketchy subject. The false contention is simply crafted in order to tender the appearance of employing the ‘tools of science’ or specious methods of doubt and denial, used to dismiss the ‘claim’ as an example of applied skeptical critical thinking.

Clarity/Clarity (Argument Outcome) – a consequentialist objective of ethical skepticism. The structure and locution of an argument formulated in such a way as to provide a relational path, lend quality and locution capability to future critical path logic, and/or which allows such to be followed, replicated or understood more easily by another party.

Qualified Argument – a level of clarity and agreement which allows for a least set of differences, when full agreement is not achieved between expertise bearing parties.

Agreement – when two expertise bearing parties subsequent to an argument, agree on its basis, quality and outcomes.

Clarke’s First Law – when a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

Click Bait (or Headline) Skepticism – a position backed by articles or studies in which the headline appears to support the position contended, however which in reality actually contend something completely or antithetically different. A skeptical understanding which is developed though sound bytes and by never actually reading the abstract, method or content of cited articles or studies.

Click Bait (or Headline) Libel – when asking a question in a headline which falsely impugns a person’s background or character, in order to attract attention and harm that person through implication – and then to subsequently conclude in the text of the associated article that the contention is of an unknown or unproven status.

Clique Rank Flag – if you gain your understanding from a inside a clique, you are at the bottom of that clique. Celebrity then, is your only recourse.

Closet Coast Fan – a person who loudly and visibly decries a litany of subjects in order to be accepted by fellow false skeptics, but secretly listens to paranormal talk radio and watches ghost hunter and UFO programming religiously.

Coercion – an argument which is decided through the power or control held by one side over the other, often in a disputation.

Cogency – an inductive argument is cogent if it is high in quality and its premises provide swift consilience –that is, they all possess a common concordance with well-established truths and logic. Otherwise, it is said to be uncogent. Key inside such relation of consilience or alternately, deductive argument, is how efficiently it can be conveyed.

Cognitive Bias Abuse – cognitive biases are useful lenses inside a domain where much is known. This not always the case in a domain where much is in plurality or darkness. Misemployment of a single or array of cognitive biases which are strategically positioned inside a fundamental attribution error framework spun concerning one’s opponents. Most often so as to defend an a priori agenda item, or to rule out a construct one disfavors – a way of using ‘science’ of psychology to essential prove or disprove anything you prefer – through authority-implying positioning of cognitive biases employed to reinforce one’s point and/or discredit others.

Combative Habituation – when one views every discussion with perceived opponents as an eristic argument which must be won, or is compelled to attack those they perceive to be in disagreement. To artificially force a conclusion in a valid issue of plurality, simply because one perceives they are in an argument against a member of a disdained group.

Commonality Error – the tip of hand accidentally committed by a faking skeptic when they bristle with disdain at consumers who are able to test their claims for accuracy in their own or home testing environments, and subsequently cite counter evidence to the skeptic’s contention.

Compartmentalization – the method employed by a person wishing to deceive them self, then subsequently others, by means of organizing their thoughts in such a way as to obscure data or truth regarding a matter. Equally, a method of organization relating to the structure of access to information; of categorizing data and practices into impotent silos and categories – no single one of which can service, impact or relate truth on its own accord. While a useful tactic in intelligence management circles, compartmentalization on the part of the human mind or organizations where transparency is of utmost importance is rarely employed to good ends. A focus on only clinical experiment at the exclusion of field observation, the blinders-on academic pretense of material monism or the division of a company’s fiscal accountability mechanisms in such a way as to hide profits or nefarious expenses, all these serve as methods which abrogate goals of clarity, truth and transparency.

Completeness – the structure and locution of an argument formulated in such a way as to provide a parsimonious deduction or induction critical path, which precludes alternative deduction or induction critical paths along the same line of predicates and premises.

Complexifuscation – the introduction of similar signals, inputs or measures, alongside a control measure or an experimental measure, in an attempt to create a ‘cloud of confusion or distraction’ around the ability to effect observation, control or measure of a targeted set of data. Preemption of a phenomena with in-advance flurries of fake hoaxes, in order obscure the impact, or jade the attention span of a target audience, around a genuine feared phenomena.

Compositional Exclusion – citing one’s lack of adherence to one tenet of a belief system, or a ludicrously or extremely portrayed component of belief held by a group, to stand quod erat demonstrandum that one is not a member of that group.

Confirmation Bias – the tendency to immediately accept propaganda published in the opponent’s favored group, and to reject observations, data or ideas which do not fit the opponent’s favored models.

Confirmation Reliance Error – abuse of the Popper demarcation principle, which cites that body of knowledge/finished science cannot rely upon predictive and confirming evidence alone, by then applying this principle incorrectly to the process of science – or failing to distinguish controlled predictive science from simple confirmatory observation after the fact. This in an effort to filter out selectively, those ideas and theories which are vulnerable through having to rely in part upon predictive evidence, consilience of multiple inputs, or are further denied access to peer review and replication steps of science simply because of this malpractice in application of the Popperian predictive demarcation.

Conflation Bias – the tendency of a proponent to be unable or unwilling to distinguish recollection between personal religious or unproven beliefs, and actual accepted science; and the resulting extrapolation of science entailed therein.

Consensus – is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists composing a particular field of study. It is not a popularity poll among scientists in general or even necessarily inside the field of study in question. Consensus can only be claimed when multiple opposing explanatory alternatives have been researched in objective detail, and a reasonable body of those scientists who developed the field of opposition alternatives, have been convinced of the complimentary alternative’s superiority. Just because a null hypothesis exists, and only that hypothesis has been researched, does not provide a basis for a claim to consensus, no matter how many scientists, or those pretending to speak for science in the media, favor the null hypothesis.

Consensus Appeal to Authority – in so far as scientists speak in one voice, and dissent is not really allowed, then appeal to scientific consensus is the same as an appeal to authority.

Conservatism – a certain state of mind wherein the tendency to dismiss perceived lower likelihood events or change one’s mind very little when faced with their veracity, is dismissed as an act of rationality.

Consilience – is the nature or characteristic of an argument wherein its underpinning premises, data, multiple associated disciplines, avenues of research or predicates provide for independent but mutual reinforcement of its conclusion. This is usually regarded as important in a hypothesis reduction which cannot be easily resolved by means of Popper falsification.

Consilience Evasion – a refusal to consider scientifically multiple sources of evidence which are in congruence or agreement, focusing instead on targeting a single item from that group of individual sources of evidence because single items appear weaker when addressed alone. Also called a ‘silly con.’

Silly Con – spinning consilience as consensus. Investigating only one alternative and through manipulative pluralistic ignorance and social pressure, declaring that hypothesis as consensus and all others as unnecessary/pseudoscience/anti-science.  Spinning politically motivated variations of an accepted scientific hypothesis, and selling those variations to the untrained public, for consumption in the name of science.

Consistency – this is the nature or characteristic of an argument wherein its conclusion or structure is in parallel with well-established premises or predicates. Also the instance where all portions of compound argument leverage to support each other.

Constraint – a predicate based parameter or assumption which serves to improve the quality of an argument or improve the value or clarity of an experiment.

Construct – an original explanatory framework which has not risen to the level of Hypothesis or Theory, contending for plurality screening under Ockham’s Razor, which seeks to explain a context set of repeatable data, and is distinguishable from other Hypotheses, Theories or Constructs attempting to cohesively explain the same or related data.

Construct Laundering – a proposal of Plausible Deniability on the part of one prominent SSkeptic regarding a pluralistic topic, which is subsequently then cited as a peer reference by others inside the Cabal as ‘evidence of falsification’ and finally taken as peer reviewed proof that a topic or construct has been ‘debunked’ by experts in the community at large; when no such falsification has indeed been achieved or attempted.

Context Dancing – the twisting of the context inside which a quotation or idea has been expressed such that it appears to support a separate argument and inappropriately promote a desired specific outcome.

Continuum Fallacy – erroneous rejection of a vague claim or loosely defined data set simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be.

Contradox Bias – when citing as supporting evidence the recanting testimony of a former adherent who conducted misrepresentation to support an idea, who now contends to be a member of a an opposing idea and is “coming clean” about their lies. Suffers from a form of confirmation bias, wherein one cites as an authority, testimony from someone who has demonstrated that they will lie to support their position.

Corber’s Burden – when one tenders an authoritative claim as to what is incorrect – one must be perfectly correct. When a person or organization claims to be an authority on all that is bunk, their credibility decays in inverse exponential proportion to the number of subjects in which authority is claimed. A sufficiently large or comprehensive set of claims to conclusive evidence in denial, is indistinguishable from an appeal to authority. The mantle of ethics undertaken when one claims the role of representing conclusive scientific truth, ascertained by means other than science, such as ‘rational thinking,’ ‘critical thinking,’ ‘common sense,’ or skeptical doubt. An authoritative claim or implication as to possessing knowledge of a complete set of that which is incorrect. The nature of such a claim to authority on one’s part demands that the skeptic who assumes such a role be 100% correct. If however, one cannot be assured of being 100% correct, then one must tender the similitude of such.

Corber’s Hypocrisy – a skeptic who dismisses a large set of specific subjects and who realizes that under Corber’s Burden they must be 100% correct in such a role – speaks often about ‘following the evidence’ or that they ‘withhold conclusion’ in a state of neutrality over such subjects – when indeed such claims of behavior are not the case at all in their habit or practice.

Correlation Dismissal Error – when employing the ‘correlation does not prove causality’ quip to terminally dismiss an observed correlation, when the observation is being used to underpin a construct or argument possessing consilience, is seeking plurality, constitutes direct fingerprint evidence and/or is not being touted as final conclusive proof in and of itself.

Crabapple Picking – pointing to a talking sheet of handpicked or common touted individual cases or data that loosely seem to confirm a particular position, yet in fact are not sequitur with, nor in context with, nor logically related to the point of contention being touted.

Credulity – receptiveness to ideas as true or false by merit of subject matter alone, in absence of employment of Ockham’s Razor.

Credulity Accusing – accusing a person of practicing pseudoscience and credulity simply because they are regarding an outlier idea. A credulist may be wrong, but as long as they are not pretending to represent Science or claim to be using the Scientific Method, they are not practicing pseudoscience; rather, are merely guilty of being receptive to an untested conclusion.

Credulity Fallacy – the contention or implication that an opponent or group of opponents does not practice evidence based, rational or critical thinking simply because they disagree with the proponent or can be pigeon holed into a group disdained by the proponent or the proponent’s organization.

Crier of the Gaps – a practice which has replaced the principle of ‘God of the Gaps’ solutions to systemic problems. Filling in and smoothing over gaps in information or understanding, through media intimidation, bravado and over-publication – as a means to defacto adjudicate/emasculate such gaps in understanding in the realm of public opinion, through jackboot ignorance, nonaganda and propaganda.

Critical Blindness – the conflation of a position of authority or influence with one’s presumed possession of a higher level of personal competence. The mental obstacle created in a person granted entitled authority before they are emotionally ready, wherein they lose their ability to create, to gracefully understand or value the dynamics of human nature, motivation and leadership; descending further into shallow and habitual negative or doubtful critical assessments of those ‘under’ or different from them, coupled with an ever growing hunger for absolute control.

Critical Thinking – the process of methodically and objectively evaluating a claim to verity, through seeking new observations which can be creatively and intelligently framed to challenge elements of fiat knowledge which underpin the claim, regardless of how compulsive reasonable, justified and accepted that knowledge might be promoted or perceived.

Criticism – negative attack on a specific position, often implying personal competence and/or surreptitiously promoting an antithetical position.

Cryptical Thinking Fallacy – the false claim by SSkeptics that they practice scientific or critical investigatory method within a topic of discourse. False skeptics advertise this as a honed skill which affords their opinions equal weight with a scientist, or superior credibility over any layman, on any particular topic they wish to dominate and condemn.

Cultivation of Ignorance – the social engineering tactic of ensuring that the number of true experts within a given field of study never exceeds a given percent of the members composing the body of science: a threshold deemed Michael Shermer’s ‘dismissible margin.’ By acting as the Malcolm Gladwell connectors, and under the moniker of ‘skeptics’ in this blind parliament of science, Social Skeptics can then leverage the mutual ignorance of the members and begin to spin misconceptions as to what expert scientists think. Moreover, then communicate these falsehoods to other scientists and the media at large. True experts who dissent are then intimidated and must remain quiet so as not to seem anathema, or risk possibly being declared fringe by the connecting Social Skeptic Cabal.

Cunningham’s Law – an approach to Akratic Trolling which states that the best way to get the right answer on the Internet is not to ask a question, it’s to post the wrong answer.

Curmudgeonality Error – when one is often suspicious of or hostile towards new social trends. Believing that one’s self is instead holding up the standard against a sense that values are slipping, or the world is suffering from spreading disrespect, irrationality or lowered set of standards.

Curse of Knowledge Effect – when better-informed people find it extremely difficult to think about problems from the perspective of lesser-informed people; or perceive that their burden of knowledge cannot be fathomed by lesser-capable people, rendering them unable to practice critical or evidence based thinking.

Cut the Feed – also known as an Entscheiden Mechanism – the pseudoscientific or tyrannical approach of, when faced with epistemology or observation which is heading in an undesired direction, artificially declaring under a condition of praedicate evidentia, the science as ended or ‘settled’ – or to cut off all scientific examination of the subject – as in a NASA notorious ‘cut the feed’ event.

Cynical Blindness – the condition where a negare attentio affect becomes so pronounced, and a person so habituated to the methods of cynicism that they neither desire to, nor can they detect methods of cynicism in themselves and others the see as allies – immediately, without reflection denying that they are a cynic when queried.

Dead Body Contraposition Fallacy – the contention that if there exists an element A, then there would be B observations which would result directly from the presence of A, for instance an animal A would result in a dead body, B. Therefore the absence of observation of B means that A does not therefore exist.

Debate – neutral or negative bifurcated criticisms and defenses between two opposing viewpoints.

Debunking – as C. S. Lewis noted, is an easy and lazy kind of ‘rationality’ that almost anyone can do and on any subject. It is a methodology passed falsely to the public as an exercise of skepticism or science, which is further then employed to brainwash one’s self into ‘doubting’ all but a single unacknowledged answer, via an inverse negation fallacy. The method involves dredging up just enough question, technique or plausible deniability such that evidence or observation may be dismissed without scientific inquiry. Further then dismissing the subject from then on, declaring it as ‘debunked’ and referring this appeal to authority for others to then cite.

Deducibility – the effectiveness of an argument’s completeness in such a manner as to falsify, or through effective consilience in absence of possible falsification, render at least one other hypothesis along a critical path set as false or more highly unlikely and therefore no longer relevant.

Deductive Argument – an argument which uses premises and logic to eliminate all reasonable alternative considerations, or sets of possible contribution/consideration, through comparison to the strength of its primary assertions. The conclusion is contended to follow with logical necessity from the premises and reductions. Reductions can exist as either elimination of alternatives by hypothesis falsification research, or simply by set constrainment. For example, All men are mortal. Plato is a man. Therefore, Plato is mortal.

Delusions of Superiority Error – when one believes that they have special traits or talents not shared by other people. Usually these are confined to a narrow range of human abilities, and tend to center around issues of intelligence or education.

Denial Activist’s Bias – when bias is evident from the social fact that the majority of persons inside a denial based activists group, neither have studied nor had any first hand experience within the subject they are actively seeking to deny.

Denial/Dissent Blurring – denial obfuscation efforts by a SSkeptic being falsely passed off as informed dissent on their part. Conversely, spinning dissenters or those with opposing data as persons who are “Deniers.”

Denialty – when sskepticism or another institution claiming to represent ‘science’ conclusively promotes evidence showing all suspects they are seeking to protect, as being innocent, yet there is a dead body nonetheless. A state of ignorance which results from such a condition.

Denying the Antecedent – the contention that since a subject is a pseudoscience, then any of its constructs, theories, results, data and observations are invalid and anyone who considers them is a pseudo scientist.

Deontology – an approach to the ethics of knowledge development that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the attractive or unattractive nature of the consequences of those actions (Consequentialism) or to the character, credentials and habits of the actor (Virtue Ethics). In science, the process of valuing the scientific method over any of its particular conclusions or the people/institutions claiming them. A deontologist seeks to reduce the unnecessary complexity of a process of questioning and the associated answers or lack thereof. Then further by conformance to a set of accepted practices, induce or deduce answers to specific questions which collectively serve to reduce the overall level of ignorance (a priori doubt, belief and stacked provisional knowledge) featured inside a given topic. Principally this process results in what is called an epistemology. A deontologist prefers a state of ‘unknown’ over even a highly probable stacked set of provisional knowledge, because of the preferential deontological ethics of declaring a precise answer to be unknown, over ‘probably known’ inside a context of low intelligence and unevaluated risk. This because when the deontologist surveys the horizon of what is truly unknown, he is able then to reduce process and focus on the correct next question under the scientific method.

Deskeption – the art of crafting power through pseudo-skepticism, institutional doctrine and cultivated ignorance.

Devil’s Advocate – neutral role play in which the favored position is probed for weakness and/or is refuted.

Diagnostic Habituation Error – the tendency of medical professionals to view subjects of discourse as if resolvable by the methods of diagnosis, when most fields of discourse cannot be approached solely in this manner. Diagnosis involves a mandatory answer, closed set of observational data, constraints, model convergence, increasing simplicity and conclusions which select from a closed field of prescriptive conclusions. All of these domain traits are seldom encountered in the broader world of scientific research.

Dialectic – a positive and mutual reductive or deductive attempt to assemble a newly crafted common position.

Dietrologia – the staunch insistance that the obvious or apparent explanation, concerning specific targeted subjects, cannot possibly be the truth. There is always something hidden behind, a hoax, corruption, a misinterpretation, a lie; ie. the dietro.

Discounting Vividness – the invalid presumption that all types of eyewitness testimony are universally faulty, and further, that those involving describing an occurrence in vivid or emotional detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, are immediately suspect and should be discredited.

Disinformation – when a group plants a false item of information inside the camp of thought they oppose, then alerts their allies (typically the main stream press) to highlight this falsehood as a means to discredit those groups, their movements or people disdained by the disinformation specialist and/or the condemning press channel.

Dismissertation – reciting scant, cherry picked or anecdotal counter-arguing evidence which appears to dismiss or plausibly deny a subject. Evidence consists often of only canned talking points from an agenda group and not authentic research. The technique is sometimes admissible in peer review, however is a fallacy when applied in a petition for plurality.

Dismissible Margin – the social engineering technique of ensuring that experts inside a body of embargoed science constitute no more than a couple percentage points or less, or that which is less than the Michael Shermer dismissible margin, of the larger body of scientists advised and educated by SSkepticism.

Dismissible Margin Fallacy – presuming that proponents inside a body of embargoed science constitute no more than a couple percentage points or less of all scientists, or that which is less than the Michael Shermer dismissible margin, of the larger body of scientists advised and educated by SSkepticism.

Disputation – a negative or neutral defense against an attack, in support of an attacked position or person.

Dissent – the either objective or irrational act of refusing to fully accede to a paradigm or generally accepted theory.

Doubt – there are two forms of ‘doubt’:

Methodical Doubt – the first is the questionable method of denying that something exists or is true simply because it defies a certain stacked provisional knowledge. This is nothing but a belief expressed in the negative, packaged in such a fashion as to exploit the knowledge that claims to denial are afforded immediate acceptance over claims to the affirmative. This is a religious game of manipulating the process of knowledge development into a whipsaw effect supporting a given conclusion set.

Deontological Doubt (Epoché) – if however one defines ‘doubt’ – as the refusal to assign an answer (no matter how probable) for a specific question – in absence of assessing question sequence, risk and dependency (reduction), preferring instead the value of leaving the question unanswered (null) over a state of being ‘sorta answered inside a mutually reinforcing set of sorta answereds’ (provisional knowledge) – then this is the superior nature of deontological ethics.

Most fake skeptics define ‘doubt’ as the former and not the latter – and often fail to understand the difference.

DRiP Method – the method by which SSkpetics employ Pseudoscience to filter official discourse and enforce the religious goals of the Deskeption Cabal by the process of 1. D Denying Data, 2. R Restricting Research in 3. P Preventing or Pretending Peer Review.

Dunning-Kruger Abuse – a form of ad hominem attack. Inappropriate application of the Dunning-Kruger fallacy in circumstances where it should not apply; instances where every person has a right, responsibility or qualification as a victim/stakeholder to make their voice heard, despite not being deemed a degree, competency or title holding expert in that field.

Dunning-Kruger Denial – the manipulation of public sentiment and perceptions of science, and/or condemnation of persons through skillful exploitation of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. This occurs in four speciated forms:

Dunning-Kruger Exploitation – the manipulation of unconsciously incompetent persons or laypersons into believing that a source of authority expresses certain opinions, when in fact the persons can neither understand the principles underpinning the opinions, nor critically address the recitation of authority imposed upon them. This includes the circumstance where those incompetent persons are then included in the ‘approved’ club solely because of their adherence to proper and rational approved ideas.

Dunning-Kruger Milieu – a circumstance wherein either errant information or fake-hoaxing exists in such quantity under a Dunning-Kruger Exploitation circumstance, or a critical mass of Dunning-Kruger Effect population is present, such that core truths observations, principles and effects surrounding a topic cannot be readily communicated or discerned, as distinct from misinformation, propaganda and bunk.

Dunning-Kruger Projection (aka Plaiting) – the condition in which an expert in one discipline over-confidently fails to realize that they are not competent to speak in another discipline, instead relying upon their status in their home discipline or as a scientist, to underpin their authority or self-deception regarding an array of subjects inside of which they know very little.

Dunning-Kruger Skepticism – an effect in which incompetent people making claim under ‘skepticism,’ fail to realize they are incompetent both as a skeptic and as well inside the subject matter at hand. Consequently they will fall easily for an argument of social denial/promotion because they

1.  lack the skill or maturity to distinguish between competence and incompetence among their skeptic peers and/or are

2.  unduly influenced by a condition of Dunning-Kruger Exploitation or Millieu, and/or are

3.  misled by false promotions of what is indeed skepticism, or possess a deep seated need to be accepted under a Negare Attentio Effect.

Dunning-Kruger Effect – an effect in which incompetent people fail to realize they are incompetent because they lack the skill or maturity to distinguish between competence and incompetence among their peers.

Ecneics – refusal to study a topic, so one can then cite the fact that no evidence exists, and moreover then can declare the subject to be invalid. Anecdotes in support, only serve to reinforce the correct conclusion in denial.

Ecological Fallacy – where inferences about the nature of individuals are deduced from inference for the group to which those individuals belong.

Editorial Burden – when employing one’s position as a regular/urgent editorial publication journalist or pretender, or some key presentation due inside a group of skepticism as a reason to boost one’s profile in attacking various subjects and people, without sound basis, ethics or rationality.

Editorial Burden Error – when pushing the envelope on evidence/reason or making mistakes as to what to discredit, impugn and attack because one is under the burden of having to find some subject to discredit or eviscerate. This because they are on a regular/urgent editorial publication schedule or have some key presentation due inside a group of skepticism.

Educative Difficulty Effect – that information acquired in a course of academic instruction or that takes longer to read and is thought about more (processed with more difficulty) is more easily remembered or validly applied.

Effect Inversion – one sign of a study which has been tampered with through inclusion and exclusion criteria, in an effort to dampen below significance or eliminate an undesired signal, is the circumstance where an inverse or opposite relationship effect is observed in the data when the inverse question is asked concerning the same set of data. If a retrospective cohort study purportedly shows no effect relationship between a candidate cause and a malady – there should also be no relationship between the candidate cause and the absence of the malady as well (if the two are indeed unrelated epidemiology). The presence of a reverse or apparently ‘curative’ influence of the candidate cause being evaluated in the data may signal the impact of data manipulation.

Einfach Mechanism – aka The (Wonka) Golden Ticket – an explanation, theory or idea which resolves a contention under the scientific method solely by means of the strength of the idea itself. An idea which is not vetted by the rigor of falsification, predictive consilience nor mathematical derivation, rather is simply considered such a strong, or Occam’s Razor (sic) simple an idea that the issue is closed as finished science from its proposition and acceptance onward. An einfach mechanism may or may not be existentially true.

Ekdíkisi (εκδίκηση) – an idea that operates under the theory that persons who use science as a self identity and battering ram to condemn others, often suffer from repressed outrage/injury over childhood or teen age rejection. Such individuals therefore seek to take the position of power afforded through ‘representing science’, as an arsenal of revenge against the opposite sex or a perception of inadequacy over their genitalia or degree of sexual activity or desirability during young adulthood. Greek for ‘vengeance’.

Elegance – the effectiveness of an argument’s quality such that it accomplishes an outcome or multiple outcomes in the most propitious manner.

Embargo Hypothesis (Hξ) – the hypothesis which must be dismissed without science because it threatens simplicity and verisimilitude. A disfavored hypothesis which will never be afforded access to science or the scientific method no matter what level of consilience is attained. An idea which threatens to expose the risk linkages inside of or falsify a stack of protected provisional knowledge which has achieved an importance greater than science itself: an Omega Hypothesis.

Empathy Gap – the tendency to underestimate the influence or strength of feelings, in either oneself and over-estimate it in others.

Emperor’s New Clothes Cozenage – a cultural state in which such delusion persists or when one underpins argument for a supposed tenet of science by its being too intricate or incomprehensible for those unfit for their positions, or too stupid, or untrained, of of lower caste or incompetent to comprehend.

Entscheiden Mechanism – aka as the Embargo Hypothesis (Hξ) – the pseudoscientific or tyrannical approach of, when faced with epistemology which is heading in an undesired direction, artificially declaring under a condition of praedicate evidentia, the science as ‘settled’.

Epibelieology – the study of the patterns and effects of health & disease conditions in defined populations; while yet at the same time meticulously avoiding study of the cause of those same diseases or conditions.

Epicaricacy – schadenfreude is the enjoyment of witnessing the misfortune of others through their own mistake, accident or self inflicted agony. In contrast, epicariacy is the enjoyment of witnessing the harm one individual receives at the hands of another, usually maliciously-minded party. The similar English expression would be ‘Roman holiday’, a metaphor from the poem Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage by George Gordon (Lord Byron) wherein a gladiator in ancient Rome expects to be “butchered to make a Roman holiday,” i.e. the audience would take pleasure from watching his forced suffering at another’s hands. The term suggests motives of pleasure or political expediency beyond simple schadenfreude; consisting more of debauchery and exploitation for gain in addition to sadistic enjoyment. One exception to both meanings, and common mistake in their application however, is citing schadenfreude or epicariacy in the case where one is witnessing a temper tantrum. Temper tantrums are intended forms of violence upon others, and in no way reflect a person being in a state of misfortune or harm.

Epistemic Commitment – is a compulsion on the part of a proponent to uphold the factual assertions of a given proposition, and to tender apologetic or No True Scotsman pleading exceptions, when faced with contraindicating data. It contrasts with dogma in that epistemic commitment may be released through respectful discourse, whereas dogma typically is not.

Epistemological Psychic Study – when a statistical trend study shows a trend in data, but the only data elements supporting the contended trend all exist in the future and/or none of the past data supports such a trend; their being included simply to serve an appearance of statistical rigor and significance. Usually applied to support a political cause, and in an arena where the observable final outcome will be well beyond the proponent’s lifespan or political career.

Epoché (ἐποχή, “suspension”) – the suspended state of judgement which eschews the exercise of religious and dogmatic disposition when encountering new observations, ideas and data. It is underpinned by both a questioning of true knowledge development (Epignosis) and the repository of accepted knowledge (Gnosis).

Equivocation – the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning, sense, or use in professional context by glossing over which meaning is intended in the instance of usage, in order to mis-define, inappropriately include or exclude data in an argument.

Equivocation Straw Man – using opponent’s habit or ease of simplicity in communication, to compress a principle into a single name or word, to further then equivocate that word or name and afford a pathway to then straw man his position.

Erga Omnes – Latin term referring to rights and obligations which are owed towards all. A limiting principle in copyright infringement which cites that one entity cannot defacto own as intellectual property a legal right or contract/agreement/legal statute principle through the tactic of holding possession of the copyright on the most accurate or legally cost expedient way in which it is expressed, written or described.

Ergo Sum Scientia – when a group or person portrays highly visible activism on an easy or a sensible cause célèbre in support/defense of science, in order to tender the appearance of and imply to an audience that they represent critical thinking, the scientific method or the correct conclusions of science. Holding club meetings at prominent universities in or to imply their endorsement of your cause, or imply that your group represents science.

Ergo Sum Veritas – the assumption, implication or inference that an organization bearing a form of title regarding skepticism immediately holds de facto unquestionable factual or ideological credibility over any other entity having conducted an equivalent level of research into a matter at hand. The assumption, implication or inference that an organization or individual bearing a form of title regarding skepticism, adheres to a higher level of professionalism, ethics or morality than does the general population.

Ergo Sum Veritas 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.’

Ergo Sum Veritas Fallacy (strong) – the assumption that because one’s organization is acting in the name of skepticism, evidence or science, that such a self claimed position affords the organization and its and/or members exemption from defamation, business tampering, fraud, privacy, stalking, harassment and tortious interference laws.

Eristic Argument – an argument which is posed with the goal of winning and embarrassing an opposing arguer, as opposed to seeking clarity, value or common ground. Usually stems from the arguer’s past psychological injury, narcissism and combative habituation.

Error of the Default Null (Omega Hypothesis or King of the Hill Pseudoscience) – a variation of argument from ignorance. The practice of assigning a favored or untestable/unfalsifiable hypothesis unmerited status as the null hypothesis. Further then proclaiming the Default Null as the null hypothesis until such time as it can be defeated by new competing science.

Error of the True Null (Omega Hypothesis or King of the Hill Pseudoscience) – a variation of argument from ignorance. Regarding the null hypothesis as objectively ‘true’ until proved otherwise, when it simply is the null hypothesis from the standpoint of the logical calculus in a hypothesis reduction hierarchy and not because it has been underpinned by a Popper level scientific rigor. Further then proclaiming the True Null to be the prevailing conclusion of science.

Error of the Guilty Null (The Precautionary Principle) – the practice of assigning a favored hypothesis the status as null hypothesis, when in fact the hypothesis involves a feature or implication which would dictate its address as an alternative hypothesis instead.  A null hypothesis which is, by risk or impact, considered potentially harmful until proved innocent, should be treated as an alternative under correct parsimony. Further then invalidly proclaiming this Guilty Null to be the prevailing conclusion of science until such testing is conducted which could prove it to be false or until such time as it can be defeated by new competing science.

Essential Schema – an organized structure of thought and perception that interleaves information frameworks by the relationships among key data. A mental framework of epistemological or preconceived ideas, representing some aspect of the world, concept of learning, system or event. It can be utilized as a system of organizing, perceiving and retaining new information. Schemata influence attention and the efficacy of absorption/retention of new knowledge. People are more likely to notice and retain data which fit into their schema. Essential Schemata have a tendency to remain unchanged, even in the face of contradictory information and the passage of time.

Essential Schema Filtering Error – when one uses pop psychology studies such as the 1980’s Loftus Study to dismiss memories and observations which they do not like. By citing that memories and eyewitness testimony are unreliable forms of evidence, pretend skeptics present an illusion of confidence on dismissing disliked eyewitness essential schema data, when neither the Federal Rules of Evidence, science nor even the cited studies make such a claim which allows the dismissal of eyewitness testimony at all.

Ethical Skepticism – a means of disciplining one’s mind, practices and data sets in order to maintain objectivity in methods of science. The positive technique of developing a neutral phylogeny, cataloging existing and new data without prejudice. An aversion to obsessing over proof or the disposing of subjects, people and claims; while instead, focusing on accruing field observations and asking the critical reduction path, value and clarity enhancing, next question under the scientific method. Defense of the Knowledge Development Process through application of Ockham’s Razor and full scientific methodology. Opposition to all thinking which seeks to surreptitiously establish power through errant science or method, religion, institution, cabal, oligarchy, intimidation or ignorance – regardless of how ‘critical’ or ‘rational’ it purports to be.

Evidence Based Appeal to Authority – when a claim to be ‘evidence based’ is used to excuse a sufficiently large set of comprehensive claims or is tendered inside a domain with a sufficiently large unknown – it is indistinguishable from an appeal to authority. Part of Corber’s Burden.

Existential Fallacy (of Science) – the implication or contention that there is no science supporting an idea, or that science has rejected an idea, when in fact no scientific study at all, or of any serious import has been conducted on the topic at hand.

Existential Fallacy of Data – the implication or contention that there is an absence of observation or data supporting an idea, when in fact no observational study at all, or of any serious import has been conducted by science on the topic at hand.

Existential Occam’s Razor Fallacy (Appeal to Authority) – the false contention that the simplest or most probable explanation tends to be the scientifically correct one. Suffers from the weakness that myriad and complex underpinning assumptions, based upon scant predictive/suggestive study, provisional knowledge or Popper insufficient science, result in the condition of tendering the appearance of ‘simplicity.’

Existential Popper Demarcation Error – citing something as a pseudoscience simply because one does not like the topic, or the topic has had pretend science performed in its name in the past.

Experimenter’s Bias – the tendency for experimenters to believe, certify, and publish data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment, and to disbelieve, discard, or downgrade the corresponding weightings for data that appear to conflict with those expectations.

Expert Relative Privation Error – the subjective contention that an avenue of research is not transparent to accountability inside science, that scientists are restricted from or too busy to access its undisciplined body or domain of evidence, or that the sponsors are hiding/ignoring counter evidence or are not forthcoming with their analysis. When in fact, such contentions are excuses foisted to countermand a need to pursue under the scientific method, a subject which has passed an Ockham’s Razor necessity of plurality.

Expertise – immediate, significant, research based, relevant and salient experience in the subject field inside which an argument pertains. This includes the impacted stakeholders in a decision or action.

Explanatory Argument – an argument which in which its postulates attempt to explain, provide analogy or try to show why or how something is or will be. May be confused with rhetoric due to it similar structure.

Explanitude – the condition where a theory or approach has been pushed so hard as authority, or is developed upon the basis of unacknowledged domain uncertainty (such as Marxist class struggle theory or Freudian psychology of sex), that it begins to provide a basis of explanation for, or possesses an accommodation/justification for every condition which is observed or that the theory domain promotes. A theory or approach which seems to be able to explain everything, likely explains nothing.

Exploiter – an Agent of Deskeption who poses as an Anti-Institutionalist, Champion of the Credulist and representative of the Concealed Truth.

Extremophiles in my Teapot – excessive or undue worry which is generated through exploitation of a sophomoric knowledge of science, which can be up-spun into crafting boogey men which do not realistically exist in modern life. Any argument which promotes/exploits such worry and poses as ‘science’.

Extrinsic Incentives Bias – an exception to the fundamental attribution error, when people view others as having (situational) extrinsic motivations and (dispositional) intrinsic motivations for oneself.

Fabutistic – a statistic which is speciously cited from a study or set of skeptical literature, around which the recitation user misrepresents its employment context or possesses scant idea as to what it means, how it was derived, or what it is saying or is indeed not saying. Includes the instance wherein a cited statistic is employed in a fashion wherein only the numerals are correct (ie. “97%”) and the context of employment is extrapolated, hyperbole or is completely incorrect.

¡fact! – lying through facts. Data or a datum which is submitted in order to intimidate those in a discussion, is not really understood by the claimant, or rather which is made up, is not salient or relevant to the question being addressed, or is non-sequitur inside the argument being made. The relating of a fact which might be true, does not therefore mean that one is relating truth.

Fact /Ambiguity Dipole – conflation of fact along with a malicious and implicit ambiguous element. A fact tendered along with a less obvious parasitic and maliciously incorrect implication. This sleight-of-hand is employed to surreptitiously condemn topics and people false skeptics wish to attack, while avoiding the overt appearance of doing such unethical activity. One-liners and headlines are often the best places in which to practice this malicious art; typically employed with the personal goal of improving overall Cabal ranking. A Fact/Ambiguity Dipole dances along the boundary line of slander or libel, with its virtual center of gravity, the parasitic implication, clearly on the unethical side of that line, while at the same time the superficially contended technical facts remain accurate.

Fact Filibuster – the relating of a string of truisms and facts in a debate subject context, which are simply posed to distract focus, make the contender appear to be intelligent or well informed, or serve as an advisory caution to an opponent; however, which add no actual value to the actual point of contention at hand.

Factority – when one cites a couple ¡fact! bits around a subject they condemn or imply expertise inside of, so that they can then further make the claim that that they are only ‘speaking from the evidence’ and not making a claim to authority.

Faith – the personal choice to cherish an unproven construct as inspiring.

Fake Hoax Ethics Error – when one errantly regards a hoax which is purposely constructed, then revealed to ‘show how easy it is to fake this stuff,’ as standing exemplary of ethical skeptical conduct.

Fake Hoax Exploitation – an Agent of Deskeption who is anonymous, or who poses to be representative of the Concealed Truth, then posits a transparently ludicrous idea or obviously faked hoax piece of ‘evidence’ which is posed in order to discredit and poorly characterize those of opposite opinions from the SSkeptic.

Fallacy of Composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.

Fallacy of Group Composition – the contention or implication that an opponent’s belonging to a specific group of people, inside of which are held extreme positions or actions, is indicative of their adherence to those same positions and action sets; and further then that the membership in this group invalidates their ideas, observations or data.

Fallacy of Composition by Null Result – the contention that the result of a null set on an experimental observation in an unconstrained domain means that the evidence supporting the idea in question does not exist. The comparison is invalid when the null result is measured in an unconstrained field of measure, assuming it to be comparable to a null result in a constrained domain of measure, as is the instance of testing to effect a medical diagnosis.

Fallacy of Exclusive Premises – there are believers and disbelievers, and some believers are gullible. Therefore no disbelievers are gullible.

Fallacy of Existential Privation – a claim that counters a person’s concern about a scientific issue with ‘Why haven’t you solved the problem then?’ – when raising an objection in science or society does not have to be qualified by having also solved the problem in another way.

Fallacy of Ludic Dismissal – the contention that the change in statistics with regard to upswing in the belief in a disdained topic can unequivocally be shown to be an effect of media, hype hysteria and promotional campaigns by pseudo scientists.

Fallacy of Personal Privation – when one claims to be an expert or a professional working in a given field; but when pressed, cannot seem to be able to produce studies, data or ideas which are not already very commonly shared in public circles or via web searches.

Fallacy of Relative Privation – claiming that science is only the property of scientists. Dismissing an avenue of research due its waste of scientists’ time and to the existence of more important, but unrelated, problems in the world which require priority research.

Falling Between the Cracks – data which should have been brought into an argument, but which was neglected because each of the responsible members in a research or petitioning group assumed that such data was the responsibility of the other parties.

False Ally – citing that even the most extreme members of an opponent’s assumed group of inclusion agree with the position of the proponent’s argument.

False Analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited, used to disprove a challenging or disdained construct.

False Appeal to Authority – the contention that the opinions of an authority contradict, appear to countermand, or reject the data, topic or ideas of an opponent when in fact either the recitation or the ideas of the opponent or both are taken out of context, misquoted or are false in their portrayal.

False Attribution – an proponent appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.

False Consensus – consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists composing a particular field of study. It is not a popularity poll among scientists in general nor even necessarily inside the field of study in question. Consensus can only be claimed when multiple opposing explanatory alternatives have been researched in objective detail, and a reasonable body of those scientists who developed the field of opposition alternatives, have been convinced of the complimentary alternative’s superiority. Just because a null hypothesis exists, and only that hypothesis has been researched, does not provide a basis for a claim to consensus, no matter how many scientists, or those pretending to speak for science in the media, favor the null hypothesis.

False Consensus Bias – The false belief that, or willingness to acceptance the claim that, scientists are all in agreement any given subject. In psychology mostly, but also with regard to scientific consensus and the public, the idea that everyone regards issues in the same manner as we ourselves do.

False Consensus Effect – the tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree with them.

False Dilemma – committed when one implies that sufficient data exists such that a choice must now be made between a constrained subset of options, when no such threshold of data actually exists and often when the subset of options is also falsely constrained.

False Equipoise – abrogation or early broaching of the principle of equipoise. Equipoise is a term describing the ethical basis for research, in that there should exist genuine uncertainty in the expert (often medical) community conducting research on an idea, approach, treatment or theory. An ethical dilemma arises in a clinical trial or hypothesis reduction when the investigator(s) begin to observe evidence that one treatment or theory is performing to a superior level. As research progresses, the findings may provide sufficient evidence to convince both A. the direct investigation sub-community and B. the research community at large. Once a certain threshold of evidence is surpassed, in theory there is no longer genuine equipoise. False equipoise is driven by agenda, profits and bias. It consists of 1. initiating research in a condition where there is not a fair or unbiased degree of uncertainty on the part of the research group or community, 2. declaring a theory or treatment to be valid and ceasing study at too early a point in the overall research, 3. declaring a treatment or theory valid at too low a threshold of critical path evidence, or 4. declaring a treatment or theory to be consensus without adequate basis or review of uncertainty.

False Humility – to feign humility or act is certain ways so as to appear to not hold an enormous ego – while at the same time actually seeking status, argument leverage and/or praise from a targeted group.

False Parsimony – when one desires to restrict the set of potential explanations or favors a simpler explanation, yet does not possess the objectivity or integrity to know when such conservatism is no longer warranted.

False Stickiness – enforcing as proved science, a theory which should have died off with its proponents years ago.

False Syllogism – A syllogism is a structured attempt at deductive reasoning, through argument constraint by two sequitur, major and minor contentions, bounding an argument towards a single conclusion. In the instance where either major or minor argument are not truly deductive or have not eliminated every variant of condition, the syllogism is not a valid basis for inference. In other words a syllogism purports to be deductive. However in the instance of a false syllogism, the logic has not falsified all alternatives – so the syllogism has failed in its deductive soundness.

Falsifiability – an attribute of a proposition or argument that allows it to be refuted, or disproved, through observation or experiment. For example, the proposition, All crows are black, may be refuted by pointing to a crow that is not black. Falsifiability is a sign of an argument’s strength, rather than of its weakness.

Fanaticist’s Error – mistaking one’s fanaticism or being ‘hardcore’ as positively indicative of the level of understanding and commitment one possesses inside a philosophy or adopted belief set. The reality is that being fanatical or hardcore indicates more one’s dissonance over not fully believing, nor fully understanding the nature of the belief tenets to which they have lent fealty. A fanaticist is different from a fanatic. A fanatic simply loves a particular subject or brand. A fanaticist on the other hand employs their outward extremism as a cover to hide an unacknowledged and suppressed inner cognitive dissonance.

Fascism – when one spins or exaggerates science or falsely represents that science has proved an argument to be unsubstantiated in order to, legislatively or in media/public opinion, protect large corporations from the damage they cause through their products and services; especially when such services are mandated for every citizen by the presiding government.

Fear as Doubt Fallacy – when doubt or skepticism serves a psychological defense mechanism to protect one from a subject which frightens the one feigning doubt or skepticism.

Ficta Rationalitas – a disposition assessment, contended to be an outcome of rationality or scientific skepticism, when in fact it originates from flawed method and/or personal bias.

Fictional Miss-Identification – when one reacts to fictional representations as though they are real. Complaining about how a popular fictional TV programs portrays the paranormal, irate reactions to a book which invokes a ghost or spirit, or has a character convert to a spiritual outlook.

Fictus Scientia – when one uses skepticism instead of science to develop knowledge and make conclusions. The substitution of skepticism, or a logically or socially twisted form thereof, into the inappropriate role of acting or speaking on behalf of science or scientists.

Fictus Scientia Fallacy – a contention, purported to be of scientific origin, when in fact, it is not.

Fictus Skeptica – fake skeptic. Thinking that skepticism is an approach to evaluating claims in lieu of science’s role to perform such activities. Thinking that since one’s personal version of ‘rational thinking’ emphasizes evidence and applies tools of science, therefore it can bypass having to employ actual science.

Filbert’s Law – or the law of diminishing information return. Increasing the amount of data brought into an analysis does not necessarily serve to improve salience, precision or accuracy of the analysis, yet comes at the cost of stacking risk in veracity. The further away one gets from direct observation, and the more one gets into ‘the data’ only, the higher is the stack of chairs upon which one stands. To find a result use a small sample population, to hide a result use a large one.

Fine Ignorance – the result obtained when one errantly attempts to craft a simpler version of a complex principle or contain its premise inside an apothegm. In an effort to appear brilliant or package philosophical or scientific precepts into consumable bites of understanding for the common person, amateurs or the disingenuous may in the process alter the actual philosophical or scientific message at hand, rendering an incorrect or ineffective version thereof. Changing of Ockham’s Razor ‘Plurality should not be posited without necessity’, into the errant simpler and mass-consumable form ‘All things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one’.

Five Percent Fake – when a methodical cynic cites the existence of the “5% of unexplained cases” myth in an effort to appear objective. This in an effort to avoid the perception of not possessing a series of outlier data points (the 5%), the absence of which would tender the appearance of cynical bias.

Flattery Apology – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made condemning a group of people in which the opponent is included, while citing that the opponent is the acceptable and rational version of the member of that group (i.e. present company excepted, etc.).

Flaw of Identity – mis-employment of the first classical law of Greek thought, regarding essence. Falsely contending that two things sharing a unique set of characteristic qualities or features, are indeed the same thing; or conversely that two things that have different essences are different things.

Flummery – meaningless ceremonial or sycophant journalism – often characterized by worn out catch phrases, article structures, quotes, recitations, common bad guys, phrase cloning, celebrity deference and social peer flattery, often inexpertly applied and misunderstood by the writer. It is usually passed by journalists seeking to gain favor inside social skepticism or in certain political or religious circles. It features common overused pejoratives against the same group of disliked persons, and features terms such as ‘anti-___’ or ‘___-ism’ or ‘denialist’, etc. It is a form of ass kissing enacted by persons who are not particularly intelligent but nonetheless seek the social/career acceptance of appearing to be ‘rational’.

Focal Stroking – an artificial elevation of a figure of authority through group habituation. Habituation wherein group members recite or tender praise to specific notable or celebrity SSkeptics because of their known tendency to reward in kind back to those who do so.

Focusing Effect – the tendency to place too much importance on one aspect of an event.

Folta ¡Expert! – declaring one’s self to be an expert on an array of topics so broad that a seasoned career professional is able to discern that such a state of expertise is an impossibility.

Forer Effect – when an individual tenders estimations of high accuracy to descriptions of their personality or life circumstance that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range or a common subset of people.

Forer Error – ascribing accurate forecasting to be merely the outcome of Forer Effect, in absence of adequate knowledge, personal research or statistical rigor regarding the particular circumstance, which could substantiate such such a claim. The principle being that an accurate forecast establishes plurality and both parties now hold a burden of proof if a claim is tendered.

Formal Fallacy – a violation of any rule of formal inference —called also paralogism. Any common flaw in the sequitur nature of premise to conclusion, logical or predicate structure which could be cited as the fatal basis of a refutation regarding a given proposition or argument. The proposition that is formally fallacious is always considered wrong. However, the question in view is not whether its conclusion is true or false, but whether the form of the proposition supporting its conclusion is valid or invalid, and if its premises provide for logical connection into the argument (i.e. sequitur context, and not the validity per se of the premises themselves, which pertains to salience and soundness). The argument may agree in its conclusion with an eventual truth only by accident. What gives unity to different fallacies inside this view is not their characteristic dialogue structure, rather the nature of integrity inside the concepts of deduction and (non-inductive) proof upon which the proposition is critically founded.

Forrest Gump Bias/Class Bias – the regard of a person’s ideas, contentions, data or observations as being unacceptable, simply because the person is genetically, economically, physically, mentally, or socially different or perceived to be of a lower class level by an observer.

Forward Problem Blindness (Unfinished Science) – the “inverse problem” consists in using the results of actual observations to infer the values of the input parameters characterizing a system under investigation. Science which presupposes a forward problem solution, or employs big data/large S population measures only inside, a model and the physical theory linking input parameters forward to that model’s predicted outcome – without conducting direct outcome observation confirmation or field measure follow-up to such proposed values and linkages – stands as unfinished science, and cannot ethically justify a claim to consensus or finished science. The four types of Forward Problem Blindness Errors:

Type ICohort Ignorance – wherein special populations or peripheral groups consisting of different inherent profiles are not studied because the survey undertaken was inclusive but too large, or the peripheral groups themselves, while readily observable, were ignored or screened out altogether.

Type II – Parameter Ignorance – wherein a model or study disregards an important parameter – which is tendered an assumption basis which is not acknowledged by the study developer nor peer review, and is then lost as to its potential contribution to increased understanding, or even potential model or study error.

Type IIILack of Field Confirmation or Follow-Up – wherein a theoretical forward problem model is established and presumed accurate, yet despite the ready availability of a field confirming basis of observation – no effort was ever placed into such observation, confirmation of measures and relationships, or observations were not undertaken to determine long term/unanticipated outcomes.

Type IV – Field of Significant Unknown – wherein established ideas of science are applied to develop a theoretical forward problem model – and because of the familiarity on the part of science with some of the elements of the solution proposed – the solution is imputed tacit verity despite being applied inside a new field for the first time, or inside a field which bears a significant unknown.

Fox News Façade – seeking admittance to exclusive groups by visually bashing Fox News or subjects reported on Fox News (or other appropriate news outlet disdained by highly political minded people), in an effort to appear socially acceptable and in-the-club. Any pretense worn as an adornment in order to impress peers and higher-ups.

Fox News Flush – citing something as wrong because it was also reported on Fox News (or other appropriate news outlet disdained by highly political minded people).

Frank’s Law – under fundamentalist oppression, precaution will always be spun as anti-ism.

Free Thinking – a legitimate philosophical approach or movement inside of Humanities and Arts. The idea wherein one is free to apply critical thinking, creativity and method to address matters of ontology and society; no longer bound by enforced religions or historical dogma. The Free Thinking Movement was hijacked by Academic Social Skepticism in order to usher the academic philosophical movement into the fold of Social Skepticism, under the attractive guise of atheism. The final lessons of the Social Skeptic Free Thinking movement dictate acceptance of Nihilism as the only approved religion, eschewing of all subjects not authorized for study, and encouragement of activist methods of idea/speech restriction employed by converted former Free Thinkers.

Fundamental Attribution Bias – when one considers the traits of another to stem from situational factors that may affect a person’s behavior as opposed to dispositional factors; yet views their own behavior as stemming from chiefly dispositional factors.

Funderstanding – one of the characteristics of sound understanding is that it helps us in developing further knowledge and understanding. An understanding, accepted model or set of knowledge, which has served no help in furthering human understanding, should come back into question as ‘accepted knowledge.’

Furtive Confidence Fallacy – the refusal to estimate, grasp or apply principles of statistical confidence to collected data and observed arrival distributions, as a means of falsely bolstering the perceived validity of or avoid the signalling of validity in an observation set or body of data. The act of prematurely declaring or doggedly denying a multiplicity of anecdote to be equal to data.

Furtive Fallacy – undesired data and observations are asserted to have been caused by the malfeasance of researchers or laymen.

Furtive Fecklessness – a person who has no life, except that they feign skepticism in order to be deemed acceptable by the social skepticism group of cronies, or considered with the respect of a scientist in terms of knowledge on a subject, while bearing none of the credentials.

Furtivis Miraculo Fallacy – give us one free miracle, and we’ll explain all the rest. The scientific pretense of condensing all the magic involved in one’s epistemology into one single comprehensively explanatory miracle. Based on the philosophical premise that one comprising ridiculous assumption is more believable than a myriad of such assumptions.

Garbage Skepticism – when the ‘skeptical’ reasoning employed is less rational or scientifically literate than the contention it is being employed against.

Gell-Mann Amnesia – the habit or bias in which a person, upon finding a source to be unreliable and critically mistaken when reporting on a subject inside which they hold close expertise, wherein they tend to forget such error/bias and regard that source as reliable regarding other areas in which they do not hold close expertise. Gell-Mann exploitation is the realization on the part of casual effort media sources, that individual experts who can challenge their contentions, do not possess a means to aggregate their collective knowledge about the media, and craft a condemning perspective.

Gender/Racial Bias Fallacy – attributing the decisions or status of a person to be attributable to choice stereotypes presumed about their race or gender, which when observed in other races or genders, are attributed to environmental or victimization causes.

General Absence of Process Error – a subjective open avenue of convenience, wherein any disliked subject can be dismissed through its framing as not following, or possessing an absence of one or more steps of the scientific method. A denying of access to peer review, or ignoring of a study, which is then touted as evidence of ‘not following the scientific method.

Generational Blindness – when a next generation member of a group which introduces or enforces corruption accepts the previous generation’s corruption as a normal practice of business.

Geneticide – genocide by means of genetic exploitation or introduction of environmental influences which produce a sustained dysgenic effect on target populations. The exploitation of the specific genetics of a lineage of people to craft impacts seeking to ultimately and eventually eliminate them from a population. Employment of food, mandatory medicines, product and environmental toxins, social policy, laws, pesticides, and allele manipulation as a means to effect in specific genetic lineages – developmental problems, protein malnutrition, cognitive impairment, encephalopathy, birth defects, attention and comprehension difficulties, growth inhibition, mental disorders, drug and alcohol susceptibility, auto-immune disorders, endocrine collapse, disease, low rates of reproductivity, premature death – and otherwise disrupt the general health and welfare of a target population.

Genocide Argument – an argument which supports a position where, whether known or not known through means of denial based ignorance or manipulative rational ignorance, genetic sub-groups are impacted through broadsweeping application of forced consumption of a substance. Forced consumption can involve means of concealment in a significant portion of human food or environment, ingestion mandatory for participation in normal public activities, or mandatory ingestion by law. A genocide argument is always framed, defended and justified as being science.

Gish Gallop – a tactic of argument wherein the arguer skips through subject after subject or data point after data point, in order to tender the appearance of a barrage of sound unchallengeable argument.

God – Ω • ⊕ – any entity which has been ceded ongoing power, yet at the same time retains an ongoing lack of accountability. A standard employed by a proxy agent, as a virtual mass in the social leveraging of a victim.

God Proxy – any stakeholder which seeks to exploit the privileged existence as a god (power, money, notoriety, comfort), without appearing to pretend to the role. Also a stakeholder which serves to promote a set of mandatory beliefs and maintain the unaccountable nature of the entity they serve, justified by the entity’s un-assailability as either a personified or non-personified external standard.

Godwin’s Gaffe – the habit of repeatedly referring to Godwin’s Law, as a defense against methodological comparatives of fake skeptics to Lysenkoists or the Nazi or Communist Parties. While at the same time them self, subsequently bearing no compunction to not comparing anyone who disagrees with them to such oppressive institutions.

Goodhart’s Law of Skepticism – when skepticism itself becomes the goal, it ceases to be skepticism.

Google Goggles – warped or blinded perception cultivated through reliance on web searches for one’s information and understanding. Vulnerability to web opinions where every street doubter pretends to be an authority on science, every Cabal member and celebrity is falsely lauded and every unapproved person is disparaged through hyperbole and misinformation.

Google Reaction Effect – the tendency to discount as unimportant or invalid, information that can be found readily online by using Internet search engines.

Greed – the unending appetite for gain despite the provision of nothing in return. The giddy joy of unjustified income. In this definition, greed is expressed by anyone who wants to steal from society, or feels entitled to ongoing income through power, position or designation/status.

Group Attribution Error – the biased belief that the characteristics of an individual group member are reflective of the group as a whole or the tendency to assume that group decision outcomes reflect the preferences of group members, even when information is available that clearly suggests otherwise.

Groupthink Blindness – when a group fails to see their own faults, usually through the common spread of propaganda, and therefore must view any critique of, decline in or mistake by the group as being the fault of opposition or outside parties.

Halo Effect – the tendency for a person’s positive or negative traits to “spill over” from one personality area to another in others’ perceptions of them.

Hanlon’s Dilemma – a corollary of Hanlon’s Law which cites that one should never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. A skeptic who denies conspiracy then in malicious/deleterious actions must then imply that ignorance and incompetence are therefore at play.

Hasty Generalization – basing a broad conclusion about a group on rumor, stereotype, a small sample set or scant observational experience.

Hate Rhetoric – unleashing of a sometimes rhythmic and sermon-like rambling circular logic, stringing together a series of emphatic good sounding one-liners and memes into a web of defacto hate. A surreptitiously directed hate, focused on persons who coincidentally also happen to be of a different ethnicity, gender or socioeconomic grouping than the person issuing the rhetoric.

Hawthorne Contrast – a principle wherein a pretend skeptic will improve an aspect of their behavior simply in response to the fact that they are being studied or observed in a debate, whereas an honest opponent in a disagreement typically will not change theirs.

Hedging – using words with ambiguous meanings, for the planned instance wherein changing the meaning of them later will provide for a plausible way to protect one’s reputation, in case one is found to be wrong on a position of opposition.

Hempel’s paradox – an observation supporting consilience on a constrained proposition bears inductive evidential merit; however, an observation in support of its unconstrained contraposed equivalence argument is not considered a basis for consilience or evidence in support by induction. Evidence of absence or presence in the case of an unconstrained question is not as weighty as evidence in support of a constrained question of the same ilk. The former many times becoming the basis for intuition which can serve to imbue bias or mislead.

Hidden Miracle Error – when a proponent develops a purported scientific epistemology by employing a less visible but nonetheless equally extravagant construct to underpin that cosmology – eg. ‘god’ or a fantastic unexplainable occurrence which cannot be approached by method and measurement, now renders my cosmology as coherent. It relates to the phrases ‘a hidden miracle is more scientific than an expressed one’ and ‘grant me one miracle and I can explain all the rest.’

Hindsight Bias – the inclination to see past events or actions by people or groups as being more predictable than they actually were; also called the “I-knew-it-all-along” effect.

Historian’s Fallacy – occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decisions; therefore the levels of bunk, belief and credulity can be used to dismiss past events with historically credible persons, just as the same as they are employed in modern discourse.

Hoary Glory Bias – when one cites old ridiculous arguments from opposing groups from ancient times or older eras of scientific understanding, to serve as exemplary rationale as to the impeccable nature of and false incumbent merit of argument on the part of the arguer/arguer’s allegiance group.

Hoax (Fake) – hoax perpetrated to “Show how easy it is to fake this stuff.” A hoax in which the perpetrator discloses that the evidence is a fake; at some later time after they have gained the adrenaline rush of deception or when the revelation will increase their celebrity status to the greatest effect. The implication is that this hoax-and-reveal process is some sort of grand ethical action on their part.

Hoax (Straight) – anonymous or not anonymous hoax perpetrated to fool an audience of the credulous, entertain one’s self and obtain the adrenaline rush of magician-ship. The goal is to hold the deceived audience enraptured with the magician’s personal demonstrated skill, intellect, sophistry and implied authority and/or technical ability. Deception provides an adrenaline rush, especially when spun inside a cocoon of apparent correctness.

Hoax (Strawman) – anonymous hoax perpetrated to discredit. Typically outfitted fitted with a hidden “key” – the obvious or semi-obvious flaw or Achilles Heel which reveals the event or contention to be merely a hoax; purposely set to be discovered at a later time, to discredit a specific targeted subject or persons to whom the hoax relates.

Hoax-Baiting – fraudulent data crafted by SSkeptics to stand as evidence cited by other SSkeptics in countering disfavored subjects. In an epidemic of Hoax-Baiting, a SSkeptic will even cite that their evidence has been manufactured “to show how easy it is to fake this stuff.” In many instances Trolls or other SSkeptics are paid to create hoax videos on YouTube for instance, by third parties seeking to sway public discourse in and around a disfavored subject, and quash any relevant serious material on the subject.

Hoax Laundering – the employment of satire news sites to create completely false news segments, which are then passed around sympathetic advocacy groups, stripped of their source and/or satirical context to eventually emerge as potentially true, inside target opposition circles. This is not ‘fake’ news, as the common idea that this, and not mainstream media news, constitutes fake news, is another misdirection by the same advocacy groups. Rather hoax laundering occurs with respect to hoax news; as the laundering of the satirical context is intentional and useful in a lob and slam ploy advocacy effort.

Hoaxer (Fake) – hoaxer who perpetrates hoaxes to “Show how easy it is to fake this stuff.” A hoax in which the perpetrator discloses that the evidence is a fake; at some later time after they have gained the adrenaline rush of deception or when the revelation will increase their celebrity status to the greatest effect. The implication is that this hoax-and-reveal process is some sort of grand ethical action on their part. In reality.

Höchste Mechanism – aka an Omega Hypothesis (HΩ) – when a position or practice, purported to be of scientific basis, is elevated to such importance that removing the rights of professionals and citizens to dissent, speak, organize or disagree (among other rights) is justified in order to protect the position or the practice inside society.

Hostile Media Channel Effect – the tendency to see a media report or specific network as being biased and purveying only pseudoscience, owing to one’s own strong partisan views.

Hume’s Law – a normative statement, or statement of what should be, cannot be deduced exclusively from descriptive statements. In essence the philosophical refutation of rhetoric.

Hume’s Razor Error – the false presumption that a seemingly miraculous explanation is assumed to be false if any alternative explanation provided is less miraculous. Suffers from penultimate set fallacy, “Occam’s” Razor error, and the idea that by the simple proposition of a conforming alternative explanation, one can then complete the scientific method and tender a conclusion purported to be of scientific origin, based solely upon philosophical conjecture.

Humor Hoax Fraud – when posing misinformation about disdained persons or subjects, posed inside or excused by a context of humor, knowing that it will be re-circulated as fact by those with whom you associate. Pretending to be innocent by expression technicality.

Humping the Elephant – an extension of the familiar ‘elephant looks different from every angle metaphor;’ wherein a fake skeptic is not actually trying to find out the truth, rather is simply there for personal benefit or agenda promotion. In this context having their way with the elephant rather than trying to find out what it is.

Hyperepistemology – transactional pseudoscience in the employment of extreme, linear, diagnostic, inconsistent, truncated, excessively lab constrained or twisted forms of science in order to prevent the inclusion or consideration of undesired ideas, data, observations or evidence.

Hypocrisy of Plenitude – when one employs the principle of plenitude in explaining the reality of a person’s existence and self identity (you simply are experiencing one of an infinity of potentials), which is then negated by the appeal to authority of mandating severe constraint of potentials in explaining that same person’s ontological future or past (you have never lived before, nor shall you have any afterlife). Especially when one is claiming that this hypocrisy is somehow derived from ‘evidence’ or science.

Hypocritical Appeal to Authority – when suddenly and uncharacteristically recognizing as a recitation authority a resource figure whom one has previously or regularly shunned as an authority, simply because in the case cited, that resource happens to agree with or provide evidence supporting the proponent’s argued position.

Hypoepistemology – existential pseudoscience in the relegation of disfavored subjects and observations into bucket pejorative categorizations in order to prevent such subjects’ inclusion or consideration in the body of active science. Conversely, acceptance of an a priori favored idea, as constituting sound science, based simply on its attractiveness inside a set of social goals.

I Am that I Am – the principle which serves to cut theism as a form of belief, distinct from all other forms of belief as either philosophy or religion. From the Torah idiom, I Am (I Am that I Am or in Sanskrit, Aham Bramsmi): That which possesses the unique ability to be able to define itself, renders all other entities disqualified in such expertise. There is no such thing as an expert in god.

Idea vs Belief Blurring – the false practice of regarding an idea observed by a curious person, to constitute a ‘belief’ the observers’ part. This in an effort to subjugate such ideas into the category of personal religion or MiHoDeAL set. In fact an idea is simply that, a thought, and its false dismissal under the pretense of being deemed a ‘belief’ is a practice of deception and pseudoscience.

Idem Existimatis – attempting to obscure the contributing error or risk effect of imprecise estimates or assumptions, through an overt focus on the precision or accuracy of other measures inputs inside a calculation, study or argument.

Identity Compromise – a lending of fealty to a group to which one’s values or ethics would normally conflict, as a matter of expediency or self protection. Often characterized by usage of the phrase ‘I identify with’ in such a way as to divorce the person, who would otherwise in a normal context employ the expression ‘I am’, from accountability for the actions or impacts of the philosophy to which they are lending fealty.  This allows one to act as a member or protect one’s self from reprisals by falsely holding a position, which an internal conflict or conscience would not allow one to otherwise normally hold.  It is indicative of social programming and brainwashing.

Ideoblather Effect – the unconscious habituation to one liners and memorized/canned responses which are spoken by means of an autonomous reaction on the part of one faced with a troubling idea, observation, evidence set or perceived opponent.

Ignorance – the action of blinding one’s self to an eschewed reality through a satiating and insulating culture and lexicon.

Ignorance-God of the Gaps – when we obfuscate a mystery in science by means of ignoring it as taboo – then Ignorance too becomes a ‘God of the Gaps.’

Ignoratio Elenchia misdirection in argumentation rather than a weak inference. A misrepresentation of the logical calculus or evidence for an opponent’s claim, so as to frame the opponent’s contention in the poorest light.

Bifurcation Proof – when one makes up or spins an overly negative representation of another person’s position or a set of ideas/observations, and contends that this condemnation, and an implied sleight-of-hand bifurcation, therefore proves their own position or stands as scientific proof of their own idea.

“If I Only Had a Brain” Straw Man – an argument which would have constituted a straw man argument had the claimant understood it to begin with, however appears only to stem from the arguer’s inability to grasp the issue or logical calculus under discussion or contention.

Appeal to Ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent’s argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.

Chewbacca Defense – a tactic in which the aim of the argument seems to be to deliberately confuse rather than actually refute the case of the other side.

Red Herring – presentation of an argument that may or may not be logically valid on its own, but distracts the discussion away from a failing argument, as well as failing nonetheless to address the context of the issue in question or address its logical validity.

Ingens Vanitatum Argument – citing a great deal of expert irrelevance. A posing of ‘fact’ or ‘evidence’ framed inside an appeal to expertise, which is correct and relevant information at face value; however which serves to dis-inform as to the nature of the argument being vetted or the critical evidence or question being asked.

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

Straw Man Argument – crating of or logical calculus under, an argument which either does not exist, is irrelevant or is manipulated and twisted into a different form by a proponent.

Straw Man Conformance – the idea that since a person or group believes or considers subject A to be a potentiality, then an opponent insists that they therefore have endorsed extreme misrepresentations of subject A as well.

Straw Man Profiling – profiling of an individual based on an extreme or misrepresented version of their position. Any man can be made to appear irrational and vile, if his opponents only are allowed to speak on his behalf.

Scare Crow Fabrication – crafting of a position or stance on an issue which an opponent has never tendered, implied or stated. An argument fabricated from complete fiction and used to dissuade persons from viewing that opponent in a positive light.

“If I Only Had a Brain” Straw Man – an argument which would have constituted a straw man argument had the claimant understood it to begin with, however appears only to stem from the arguer’s inability to grasp the issue or logical calculus under discussion or contention.

Ignoring as Accident – exceptions or even massive sets of data and observational counter-evidence to an enforced generalization are ignored as anecdotes or accidents.

Ignoro Eventum – institutionalized pseudoscience wherein a group ignores or fails to conduct follow-up study after the execution of a risk bearing decision. The instance wherein a group declares the science behind a planned action which bears a risk relationship, dependency or precautionary principle, to be settled, in advance of this decision/action being taken. Further then failing to conduct any impact study or meta-analysis to confirm their presupposition as correct. This is not simply pseudoscience, rather it is a criminal action in many circumstances.

Ignosticism – ontological silence. A personal discipline that holds that the concept ‘god’ bears no falsifiable (Popper) definition (Wittgenstein), and therefore prohibits me from concluding or making further comment on the matter.

Illicit Major Fallacy – all researchers of pseudoscience are irrational. No scientists study pseudoscience. Therefore, all the positions of scientists on pseudoscience are rational positions.

Illicit Minor Fallacy – all skeptics are rational thinkers. All scientists are rational thinkers. Therefore, all scientists are skeptics.

Illusion of Asymmetric Insight – people perceive their knowledge of their competitors to surpass their competitors’ knowledge of them.

Illusion of Superiority – overestimating one’s desirable qualities, and underestimating undesirable qualities, relative to other people.

Illusion of Transparency – people overestimate others’ ability to know them, and they also overestimate their ability to know others.

Illusion of Truth Effect – that people are more likely to identify as true statements those they have previously heard (even if they cannot consciously remember having heard them), regardless of the actual validity of the statement.

Illusion of Validity – belief that furtherly acquired information or promulgated policy generates additional relevant data for predictions or information to bolster a position, even when it in reality does not.

Immunity Signalling – a special form of virtue signalling usually practiced by a university or corporation, wherein once it realizes that a technology or science it intends to introduce might serve to place the environment, a species, or humans at risk – in advance they will fund a large project with regard to the at-risk victim or aspect of introduced risk, signalling support for that at-risk population, issue or ecosphere. Usually this will involve the employment of top scientists which study the at risk entity, which will serve to silence them or enlist them as allies in the anticipated social debate. The virtue signal, along with the employed senior scientists will intimidate universities and activist organizations into immunity-based silence on behalf of signalling entity.

Imperium ex Absurdum – the appeal to god or infinity or holiness. Because god is holy, therefore you must be holy also. The recitation of an unattainable standard, which can conveniently therefore be used to condemn anyone at any time. Recitation of god or perfection as the source for one’s morals, beliefs or opinions, often tantamount to using the appeal to god to defacto establish that one’s self is, for all intents and purposes, god.

Imposterlösung Mechanism – aka as The Cheater’s Hypothesis – the cheater’s answer. Employing the trick of pretending that an argument domain which does not bear coherency nor soundness – somehow (in violation of science and logic) falsely merits assignment of a ‘null hypothesis’. Moreover, then that null hypothesis must be assumed sans any real form or context of evidence, or Bayesian science cannot be accomplished. Finally then, that a null hypothesis is therefore regarded by the scientific community as ‘true’ until proved otherwise. A 1, 2, 3 trick of developing supposed scientifically accepted theory which in reality bears no real epistemological, logical, predicate structure nor scientific method basis whatsoever.

Inchoate Action – 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 power holding sskeptic.

Incomplete Comparison – in which insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison of arguments between a disproved one, and a disfavored one an opponent is attempting to debunk.

Inductive Argument – an argument in which if the predicates are true and the relative quality or structure of logic is sound, then it is more probable that the conclusion will also be true. The conclusion therefore does not follow with logical necessity from the predicates, but rather with an increase in likelihood, hopefully converging to certainty. For example, every time we measure the speed of light in various media, it asymptotes to 3 × 108 m/s. Therefore, the speed of light in a medium-less vacuum is 3 × 108 m/s. Inductive arguments usually proceed from specific instances to the more general. In science, one usually proceeds inductively from data to laws to theories, hence induction is the foundation of much of science. Induction is typically taken to mean testing a proposition on a sample, or testing an idea on an established predicate, either because it would be impractical or impossible to do otherwise.

Inexpertise – conditions of general familiarity with, political or agenda motivations toward or solely skepticism and/or experience in the making of arguments in the subject field inside which an argument pertains. Not all a negative, it is the adept recognition of personal, participant or industry lack of expertise in a particular subject or field which is the essence of skepticism.

Inflation of Conflict – disagreement in a field of knowledge legitimizes an opponents’ assumption of the invalidity of that entire field.

Informal Fallacy – flaws in the expression, features, intent or dialogue structure of a proposition or series of propositions. Any criticism of an argument by means of other than structure (formal) flaws; most often when the contents of an argument’s stated premises fail to adequately support its proposed conclusion (soundness), or serious errors in foundational facts are presented.

Information Diversion – the tendency to continually seek new information on a topic at hand in order to imply the invalidity or indeterminant nature of the subject, or to distract focus away from more relevant but disliked data.

Ingens Vanitatum – knowing a great deal of irrelevance. Knowledge of every facet of a subject and all the latest information therein, which bears irony however in that this supervacuous set of knowledge stands as all that composes the science, or all that is possessed by the person making the claim to knowledge. A useless set of information which serves only to displace any relevance of the actual argument, principle or question entailed.

Ingens Vanitatum Argument – citing a great deal of expert irrelevance. A posing of ‘fact’ or ‘evidence’ framed inside an appeal to expertise, which is correct and relevant information at face value; however which serves to dis-inform as to the nature of the argument being vetted or the critical evidence or question being asked.

Ingroup Bias – the tendency for people to give preferential treatment to others, or the ideas of others they perceive to be members of their own groups.

Ingroup Bias Projection – when citing superior morality, rationality or intellect as traits more likely characteristic of members of one’s own group.

Integrity Tell – a skeptic who has examined themself first, should never cheat nor mock objective dissent in order to provide an ideological advantage for favored views. This is the first sign that one’s integrity has been compromised. The telltale sign that one is not really a skeptic.

Intellectual Messiah Complex – the belief on the the part of a false skeptic, that their superior education/rationality/mindset affords them tacit justification to represent the unheralded real well being of the people. Often combined with the attitude that people in general are too stupid/irrational to have any input on matters which skeptics advocate on their behalf.

Intentionality Fallacy – the insistence that the ultimate meaning of a construct, idea or ideology must be consistent with the intention of the person from whom the original idea, concept or communication originated; and that no new or empirically improved version of its understanding may be tested.

Invalid Comparison – in which equivocating, inconsistent or errant information is provided to attempt a complete comparison of arguments between a disproved one, and a disfavored one an opponent is attempting to debunk.

Inverse Argument from Authority – because it says something in Breitbart, Fox News, ad absurdum, therefore it follows that it’s false. Inverse of Argument from Authority, possessing the same flaw.

Inverse Negation Fallacy – the strategy of undermining any study, proponent, media byte, article, construct, data, observation, effort or idea which does not fit one’s favored model, in a surreptitious effort to promote that favored model, along with its implicit but not acknowledged underpinning claims, without tendering the appearance of doing so; nor undertaking the risk of exposing that favored model or claims set to the scientific method or to risky critical scrutiny.

Inverse Problem – to predict the result of a measurement requires (1) a model of the system under investigation, and (2) a physical theory linking the parameters of the model to the parameters being measured. This prediction of observations, given the values of the parameters defining the model constitutes the “normal problem,” or, in the jargon of inverse problem theory, the forward problem. The “inverse problem” consists in using the results of actual observations to infer the values of the parameters characterizing the system under investigation.

Irish Pennant – a term, language or definition which is non sequitur with, fails to reduce complicated-ness of, is equivocal in meaning inside or otherwise lacks integrity with either the philosophy or remaining set of definitions inside its contended context. A tattered, overlapping or incomplete definition which has been altered through the lens of an agenda, rendering it at least partly incoherent with broader philosophy, or leaving gaps in the Wittgenstein (Descriptive) sufficient understanding of a subject.

Jackboot Consensus – a version of pluralistic ignorance where social justice activism, fake celebrity skepticism or corporate push activism works to threaten the careers or publication viability of concerned scientists – thereby precipitating a form of false consensus at the heel of a boot. Most scientists quietly dissent but do not offer their opinion, considering it to be career endangering and/or in the minority.

Jackery – accusing a person of being a quack simply because they sell a treatment which is not billed through a big pharmaceutical chain or authorized healthcare plan channel, or is based upon a supplement or HPUS formulation.

Joe Poser – when an activist is selected at random from an audience, or is foisted upon a viewing audience as being randomly selected from a crowd sentiment – when neither is the case. Any instance where a crowd or audience plant is used as a supposed random interview or question poser, whom has been planted for just such a role in an audience advertised to reflect the general public or average citizen.

Judgmental Language – insulting or pejorative language employed to influence the recipient’s judgment through stirring of emotion, especially anger, by intimidation or by implying the superior status or rationality of the claimant. This will many times be delivered in the form of a one liner, cliché or weapon word.

Just World Bias – the tendency for SSkeptics to want to believe that the world is fundamentally just and rational, causing them to rationalize an otherwise unconscionable injustice as deserved by the victim(s) for their being irrational.

Kettle Logic – using multiple inconsistent arguments or discipline examples to defend a specific position or outcome at all costs.

Kilkenny’s Law – final claims to expertise and evidence may be tendered inside established trade, transactional, technical and diagnostic disciplines. Therefore:

I.  A conclusive claim to evidence inside a subject bearing a sufficiently unknown or risk-bearing horizon, is indistinguishable from an appeal to authority, and

II.  Corber’s Burden: A sufficiently large or comprehensive set of claims to conclusive evidence in denial, is indistinguishable from an appeal to authority.

III.  If you have brought me evidence based claims in the past which turned out to be premature and harmful/wrong, I will refuse to recognize your successive claims to be evidence based.

King of the Shill – resting idly on outdated only partly predictive studies while asking everyone else with any alternative idea to bring iron clad proof.

Kit Cynicism – a method of being a cynic, such as in the case of Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit, which allows one to be a cynic while at the same time convincing yourself you are not one.

Klassing – when one offers payment of money or threatens the well being or career of a person in order to get them to recant, deny, keep silent on, or renounce a previously stated observation or finding. The work of a malicious fake investigator who seeks to completely destroy an idea being researched and to actively cast aspersion on a specific subject as part of a broader embargo policy. A high visibility reputation assassin hired to intimidate future witnesses or those who might consider conducting/supporting investigative work.

Klassing Recitation – when one cites or defers to an authority who is reputed to have used Klassing methods or coercion or deceit in obtaining justifications for their research position or claims. Also to authorities who have been convicted of crimes of dishonesty under other disciplines than the one in contention.

Kriging Leap – when an argument is touted as being supported by underpinning science or precision, when the contended conclusion is not in reality supported by or connected to the underpinning science or precision. Jumping from theoretical science, glossing over intermediate principles, and directly to immediate application, in order to falsely bolster a desired position.

Krymméno Akrasia – an akratic person goes against reason as a result of some pathos (“emotion,” “feeling”). The person who practices krymméno akrasia hides this pathos and develops it by means of methodically and cynically playing the boundaries of the three Aristotelian virtues, wisdom, morality and benevolence; this in order to present a façade of character, while at the same time, deriving a more esoteric and occult goal.

Kuhn Denialism – the pseudoscience of social and media bullying with the ultimate goal of controlling exposure to and blocking Science’s consideration of a condition of plurality or new paradigm or its supporting data on a given disliked subject.

Lacks Scientific Method Error – the malpractice of disqualifying a subject, study or researcher from science by citing that it has not followed the scientific method, through blocking its access to the scientific method, refusing peer review or misrepresenting its appropriate next steps or questions, and therefore citing that it has failed the methods of science.

Latent Violation – a condition wherein a person is motivated to compliance through the lack of enforcement of a penalty concerning a violation which they, or most every one in their social group has committed. Each member knowing that if they dissent or act out of line with the group, the public humiliation and punishment for such violation could be called in at any time.

Latet Misandry – the deceptive employment of positions of skepticism or channels of skeptical media to promote ideas or ‘scientific’ evidence supporting the hatred of males or men. To conceal a hatred of males behind a pretense of rational thinking, social justice or science.

Law of Large Numbers Fallacy – a denial tactic which dismisses by presupposing the idea that one holds statistical refutation evidence. The rigor-less assumption that mass statistics will prove out any strange or unlikely observation one chooses to dismiss. It is a form of the MiHoDeAL Fallacy.

Law of Static Privation – the test of knowledge cites that for knowledge to be confirmed as true, it should be useful in underpinning or predicting further confirmed knowledge or in the process of alleviating suffering. The law of static privation therefore treats static ¡facts! which are held as authority by groups of privation, who do not apply the knowledge to better our understanding or alleviate suffering – to then be subordinated to best practices which have been broadly confirmed by victims or outside stakeholders. It is a “Use it, or lose it” challenge to a body claiming to represent scientific authority.

The Left Pole – a political point held by fake skeptics, relative to which any differing opinion in any direction is considered therefore right wing, alt-right, anti-science, racist or phobic.

Less is Better Bias – the tendency to prefer a smaller set of data to a larger set of data judged separately, but not jointly, so as to capitalize off the increased variability of the small set of data as it supports an extreme or conforming opinion.

Leveraged Duality (Mutual Coercion) – a condition wherein two people know each others’ less flattering secrets or history of error, or present a threat mutually to each other, to such an extent that each cites as authority, or praises the other publicly in order to maintain the good graces of the relationship and not spill the beans as to their mutual knowledge of their sins.

Lie Jerk Response – the psychological defense reaction a fake skeptic will employ, wherein they accuse a person who relates a challenging first hand observation or piece of evidence, of lying or exaggeration.

Lie of Allegiance – a core philosophy (such as Nihilism) which is masked by a differing but similar and more attractive cover philosophy (such as Atheism) because of the cover philosophy’s generally more acceptable nature. The core argument which binds together a group on one side in a false dilemma. A principle which is not fully regarded as truth by the members of a group of adherents, rather is employed only as the default, null hypothesis, or battle cry agenda around which to combat those on the other side of the false dilemma argument. The measure of adherence to the Lie of Allegiance principle is more a reflection of hate towards those of antithetical positions, than it is an expression of rational conclusion on the part of the participant. Many of the proponents in a Lie of Allegiance based organization, do not fully understand the Lie of Allegiance, nor perceive its contrast with the cover philosophy to which they in reality adhere.

Lindy Effect – the longer one can enforce an idea through the tactics and power protocols of proactive pluralistic ignorance, the greater future lifespan it will possess.

Loaded Language – discrediting, bias implying or pejorative language employed through leveraged equivocation and innuendo in an attempt to make self, or a topic of discourse appear superior to an opponent or opponent’s subject or contention.

Lob & Slam Ploy – a version of good cop/bad cop wherein a virtual partnership exists between well known fake news ‘satire’ news outlets, and so called ‘fact checkers’ media patrols. The fake news is generated and posed to the web as satire, subsequently stripped of its context by a third party, and then inserted into social media as true – whereupon it is virally circulated. Subsequently, ‘fact checking’ agencies are then alerted to this set up (the Lob), and then slam home the idea of the fake nature of the ‘news’, as well as the lack of credibility and gullible nature of those who passed it around through social media. This in itself is a fake ploy, a form a Fake-Hoaxing and Hoax Baiting practiced by social agenda forces seeking to artificially enhance the credibility of a news ‘fact checker’.

Logical Calculus – the quality of an argument or the ability of its objective features to commensurately lend support to its validity, which include:

Order – the structure and locution of an argument formulated in such a way as to provide a parsimonious deduction or induction critical path, which allows it to be followed or replicated by another party.

Clarity – the structure and locution of an argument formulated in such a way as to provide a relational path, which allows it to be followed or understood more easily by another party.

Completeness – the structure and locution of an argument formulated in such a way as to provide a parsimonious deduction or induction critical path, which precludes alternative deduction or induction critical paths along the same line of predicates and premises.

Consilience – this is the nature or characteristic of an argument wherein its underpinning premises or predicates provide for independent but mutual reinforcement of its conclusion. This is usually regarded as important in an argument which cannot be easily tested for falsification.

Consistency – this is the nature or characteristic of an argument wherein its conclusion or structure is in parallel with well-established premises or predicates. Also the instance where all portions of compound argument leverage to support each other.

Validity – an inductive argument is valid if its conclusion logically follows from its premises, and in parallel a deductive argument is valid if its predicates support its conclusions. Otherwise, an argument is said to be invalid. The descriptors valid and invalid apply only to arguments and not to propositions; which can be false, true or undetermined.

Structure – the logical formulation and relational structure of elements employed to array premises or predicates into a contention or extrapolation which is contended to be valid or sound.

Reducibility – the ability of an argument (as as the case in mathematics) to reduce the complexity of a question and focus in on the core argument instead – eliminating all irrelevant, dependent, unresolvable, unsolvable and incoherent ideas competing for resolution.

Deducibility – the effectiveness of an argument’s completeness in such a manner as to falsify, or through effective consilience in absence of possible falsification, render at least one other hypothesis along a critical path set as false or more highly unlikely and therefore no longer relevant.

Cogency – an inductive argument is cogent if it is high in quality and its premises provide swift consilience –that is, they all possess a common concordance with well-established truths and logic. Otherwise, it is said to be uncogent. Key inside such relation of consilience or alternately, deductive argument, is how efficiently it can be conveyed.

Falsifiability – an attribute of a proposition or argument that allows it to be refuted, or disproved, through observation or experiment. For example, the proposition, All crows are black, may be refuted by pointing to a crow that is not black. Falsifiability is a sign of an argument’s strength, rather than of its weakness.

Soundness – a deductive argument is sound if it is valid and its premises and predicates are true. If either of those conditions does not hold, then the argument is unsound. Truth is determined by looking at whether the argument’s premises, predicates and conclusions are in accordance with facts and logic in the real world.

Strength – an inductive argument is strong if in the case that its premises are true, then it is highly probable that its conclusion is also true or testable. Otherwise, if it is improbable or unknown/unknowable that its conclusion is true, then it is said to be weak. Inductive arguments are not truth-preserving; it is never the case that a true conclusion must follow from true premises.

Elegance – the effectiveness of an argument’s quality such that it accomplishes an outcome or multiple outcomes in the most propitious manner.

Logical Fallacy – an error in reasoning that results in an invalid argument. Errors are strictly to do with the reasoning used to transition from one proposition to the next, rather than with the facts. Put differently, an invalid argument for an issue does not necessarily mean that the issue is unreasonable. Logical fallacies are violations of one or more of the principles that make a good argument or deduction such as good structure, consistency, clarity, order, relevance and completeness.

Formal Fallacy – a logical fallacy whose form does not conform to the locution and rules of inference of a logical calculus. The argument’s validity can be determined just by analyzing its abstract structure without needing to evaluate its content.

Informal Fallacy – a logical fallacy that is due to its content and context rather than its form. The error in reasoning ought to be a commonly invoked one for the argument to be considered an informal fallacy.

Problem of Induction – a variety of forms of argument which either suffer from Popper’s problem of induction, demarcation or in some way imply or claim scientific completion or consensus, when such a standard has either not been attained in fact, or only exhibited inductive consilience.

Machinated Doubt – tendering the appearance of applying skeptical Cartesian Doubt to every observation except for those which happen to support one’s favored idea, belief or Omega Hypothesis.

Magician’s Ruse – when implying or contending that because one has done table and cards tricks, that they are therefore now a stage magician and cannot subsequently be fooled; or that as a result one carries some special ability to be insightful, apply critical thinking or the scientific method.

Maleduction – an argument must be reduced before it can be approached by induction or deduction – failure to reduce an argument or verify that the next appropriate question under the scientific method is being indeed addressed, is a sign of pseudoscience at play. The non rectum agitur fallacy of attempting to proceed under or derive conclusions from science when the question being addressed is agenda driven, non-reductive or misleading in its formulation or sequencing.

Malevolence – a dark triad of psychological traits, which is concealed by the dark triad participant’s tandem virtue signaling actions, which target exploiting harm to specific parties for one’s benefit. Malevolence (or the Dark Triad), according to the Handbook of interpersonal theory and research, by Jones and Paulhus, comprises three personality traits:

1) Narcissism, characterized by grandiosity, self-pride, egotism, celebrity-seeking and a lack of empathy,

2) Machiavellianism, characterized by sleight-of-hand, manipulation and exploitation of others, a cynical disregard for ethics or morality, and a focus on self-interest and deception and

3) Psychopathy, characterized by highly visible compensation for antisocial behavior, impulsivity, selfishness, callousness, and obdurate remorselessness.

Manipulative Rational Ignorance – a form of rhetoric wherein an arguer contends rational ignorance applies inside an argument, or the ignoring of a pathway of science because the cost or effort entailed is too high versus the results or lack thereof to be obtained from the effort. When in fact the arguer in reality fears the cost or penalty which would be incurred should the outcome of the scientific effort result in an observation or conclusion which he fears.

Margold’s Law – the observed level of integrity which a fake skeptic applies regarding one subject in which an external observer is an expert, will extrapolate reliably to constitute the level of integrity the fake skeptic applies in all subjects the fake skeptic debunks.

Masked Man Fallacy – the contention that an opponent cannot be scientific or rational because the skeptic knows a good scientist or rational thinker when they see one; and the opponent is not one.

Mea Mensura – by my own measure. The false method of evaluating others by judging whether or not you did or could have also attained what they did. If you attained it or could have attained their accomplishment, then they are telling the truth. However, if you are threatened by the fact that you did or could not accomplish what they did, then of course they are lying. Because you regard self as the pinnacle of all that a talented person can accomplish or understand inside humanity. It is a form of proactive jealously, by denying credibility to persons whom we have evaluated as not being up to our social, tenure or intellectual level. This mismatch most often makes a socially intelligent (power focused) person mad, therefore they attack a logically intelligent person or accomplished STEMM professional, whom they regard as beneath them on the social ranking, by accusing them of lying or hyperbole, or treating them with disdain or mocking with regard to their accomplishments.

Medium Fallax – the tendency to regard or promote the mean (μ) or other easily derived or comprehensive statistic as constituting an equivalent descriptive of the whole body of a set of data or a closely related issue – assuming immunity from the burden of identifying a causal critical path or developing testable mechanism to prove out the contention made (critical elements of scientific theory); or the process of misleading with statistical indications as to the makeup and nature of a body of data. I’ve got my head in the oven, and my ass in the fridge, so I’m OK.

Meta-Awareness Deficiency – a lack of awareness of the motivation or value systems of others. The tendency to make assumptions regarding “right thinking” which fail to take into account the unique circumstances or social structure in which other people live.

The Method of Scientific Propaganda – The common deeper hallmarks of scientific propaganda in this regard therefore proceed according to this method:

  1. To conflate and promote consilience as consensus. Consilience is not a ‘unity of knowledge’ as Edward O. Wilson contends – as only diligent investigation of all compelling alternatives can serve to unify knowledge.
  2. To imply or default that a null hypothesis is ‘true‘ until proved otherwise, knowing that proof is a seldom attained standard in science.
  3. To employ as null hypothesis, that which cannot be approached by Popper demarcation and falsification, and then further demonize all competing ideas.
  4. To investigate only one hypothesis, and deem the social pressure and pluralistic ignorance around this bad habit as consensus or even consilience.
  5. To proscribe investigation into any alternative or deviation from consilience and give a moniker (anti-science or pseudoscience) to those who do so.
  6. To fail to conduct followup or safety confirmation studies, or sufficient parsimonious or precautionary study, in a circumstance where a risk has been adopted in the name of science.
  7. To tamper with or conflate, the three forms of consensus into a falsely (through vulnerability exploitation) derived claim to scientific consensus of an Omega Hypothesis.
  8. To alter scientific paradigms or questions in a sleight-of-hand manner in order to establish a false basis for a completely separate but disguised contention.
  9. To teach simpleton (simplest answer) or black and white delineations of scientific arguments as settled science, through channels of journalism which cannot differentiate good science from bad.
  10. To employ explanitude based disciplines, bullying, celebrity, journalism and false forms of philosophy and skepticism, as a means to enforce an agenda, dressed up as science.

Methodical Cynicism – the cultivation of ignorance through the exploitation of denial. A method of cultivating ignorance through corruption of the process which regulates our social and scientific understanding. The exploitation of denial mandating a personal religious belief set while at the same time tendering an affectation of science.

MiHoDeAL Bias – the made or implied assumption that all case examples of a subject domain are Misidentifications, Hoaxes, Delusions, Anecdotes, Lies (MiHoDeAL). A MiHoDeAL claim most often involves a false Appeal to Skepticism, and more specifically most often constitutes a Truzzi Fallacy.

MiHoDeAL Fallacy – the invalid made or implied claim to knowledge that all case examples of a subject domain are Misidentifications, Hoaxes, Delusions, Anecdotes, Lies (MiHoDeAL). When evidence involves falsification observations, a countering MiHoDeAL claim cannot be asserted by an opponent without a sufficiently robust array of predictive evidence. A MiHoDeAL claim most often involves a false Appeal to Skepticism, and more specifically most often constitutes a Truzzi Fallacy.

Miller’s Law of Communication – in order to understand what another person is saying, you must assume that it is true and try to imagine what it could be true of. Anything short of this is impersonation of a listener.

Misinformation Selectiveness – cherry picking of eyewitness data through the belief that memory becomes less accurate because of interference from post-event information, except for information which a claimant happens to favor.

Mission Directed Blindness – when one believes from being told, that they serve a greater cause or fight an evil enemy, or that some necessary actions must be taken to avoid a specific disaster. Once assumed, this renders the participant unable to handle evidence adeptly under Ockham’s Razor.

Modus Ponens – the necessity that an argument follow a form of claim such that its soundness and formal structure can be followed by others. A discipline featuring the formal structure ‘If P then Q’ premise in its expression such that claims may not be slipped by surreptitiously inside a condition of poor scientific method, fallacy or little or no actual study or supporting fact whatsoever.

Monkey Suit Fallacy – the dismissal of an entire field of data simply by abusing a position of authority or citing an authority declaring the data to all to be the result of hoaxes.

Mooers’ Law – a information source will tend not to be used by a faking skeptic whenever it is more painful and troublesome for the skeptic to have its information than for him not to have it.

Moral Credential Effect – the tendency of a track record of non-prejudice to increase subsequent prejudice.

Moving the Goalposts – argument in which evidence successfully presented in response to a specific demand for proof of an observation is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is then demanded.

Multiplicity Fallacy – the presumption that adding more skeptics to an argument or to support a specific conclusion increases the believability or accuracy of that argument or position. Several excuses are less believable than one. Several skeptics are less believable than one.

Münchhausen Axiomatic Argument – argument which rests on accepted precepts, or tenders the appearance of doing so through Kriging leap (i.e. we reach some bedrock assumption or certainty).

Münchhausen Circular Argument – argument in which theory and proof wind up supporting each other through logical association (i.e. we arrive back logically where we started).

Münchhausen Regressive Argument – argument in which each proof requires underpinning by a further proof, possibly even a replication of itself, ad infinitum (i.e. we just keep requiring proofs, presumably forever).

Muphry’s Law – if you write anything criticizing editing or proofreading, there will be a flaw of some kind in what you have written.

Musk’s Law – if a domain is exponentially exploitable, and is observed to be increasingly exploited now, then it already has been exploited.

Muta-Analysis – the most unreliable of scientific studies. Often a badly developed meta-analysis, which cannot be easily replicated or peer reviewed, contains a high degree of unacknowledged risk, or was executed based upon a poor study plan. An appeal to authority based upon faulty statistical knowledge development processes. Processes which alter or do not employ full scientific methodology, in favor of a premature claim to consensus or rigor implied by the popularity of a statistical study type. A method which does not directly observe, nor directly test, rather employs statistical procedures to answer a faulty inclusion criteria selected, asked, agenda bearing or peripherally addressed scientific question.

Mutual Coercion – a condition wherein two people know each others’ less flattering secrets or history of error, or present a threat mutually to each other, to such an extent that each cites as authority, or praises the other publicly in order to maintain the good graces of the relationship and not spill the beans as to their mutual knowledge of their sins.

Myth of the Excited Scientists – the mythical, dis-informative and/or Pollyanna contention on the part of fake skeptics wherein they will claim that if any evidence whatsoever for a disliked subject were actually found, then scientists surely would be excited about it and then dedicate their lives to study of the subject from then on.

Naive Cynicism – expecting more egocentric bias in others than in oneself.

Naive Realism – the belief that we see reality as it really is – objectively and without bias; that the facts are plain for all to see; that rational people will agree with us; and that those who don’t are either uninformed, lazy, irrational, or biased.

Nakano School Skeptic – a skeptic who is still ignorantly fighting an old argument or pushing an old understanding decades after a paradigm shift, change in scientific consensus or new information set has been brought to light. Derived from the Nakano School Japanese soldier, Hiro Onoda, who was found on an island still fighting World War II, 29 years after the war had ended.

Naturalist’s Fallacy – wherein judgment is based solely on whether the subject of judgment fits one person’s a priori definition of what constitutes a ‘natural’ or ‘paranormal’ delineation.

Negare Attentio Effect – the unconscious habituation of a person seeking publicity or attention in which they will gravitate more and more to stances of denial, skepticism and doubting inside issues of debate, as their principal method of communication or public contention. This condition is subconsciously reinforced because they are rewarded with immediate greater credence when tendering a position of doubt, find the effort or scripted method of arguing easier, enjoy shaming and demeaning people not similar to their own perception of self or presume that counter-claims don’t require any evidence, work or research.

Negative Composition Proof – disproof of tenets inside an opponent’s idea or of the idea itself stands as proof of my own idea or argument.

Negativity Bias – psychological phenomenon by which humans have a greater recall of unpleasant memories associated with a disliked organization or concept, compared with positive memories of the same.

Negativity Effect – the tendency of people, when evaluating the causes of the behaviors of a person they dislike, to attribute their positive behaviors to the environment and their negative behaviors to the person’s inherent nature or weaknesses.

Neglect by Proxy – when one employs pluralistic ignorance, false consensus or a doctrine of religious belief as a preemptive excuse or rationale as to why it is unnecessary to examine a challenging body of evidence.

Neologasm – excessive use of the pejorative designation of words as constituting ‘neologism,’ in order to block ideas or deny science one disfavors.

Neologism Authority Error – granting a word which does not qualify as a neologism, status as a neologism simply because of who originated the word, and who indeed are its intended victims.

Neologism Error – falsely deeming a word as a neologism when it is in fact a neolexia. Granting a word which does not qualify as a neologism, status as a neologism simply because of who originated the word, and who indeed are its intended victims.

Neologism Fallacy – falsely condemning a term by citing it to be a ‘neologism’ in the pejorative, when in fact the word is in common legitimate use, or is accepted as a neologism, or passes the three tests to qualify as a functional neologism.

Nero Taunting – when one publicly attacks a consumer or public need to seek out a solution, regarding a critical matter in their lives which science has not adequately addressed or researched. Usually indicated by a lack of proposed solutions and a high degree of disdainful or indignant media clamor over a penultimate set fallacy – the hyperbole over the footprint of science and its ability/history of having addressed such need.

Neti’s Razor – the principle which serves to cut nihilism as a form of belief, distinct from all other forms of atheism as either philosophy or belief. From the Sanskrit idiom, Neti Neti (not this, not that): one cannot produce evidence from that which at a point did or will not exist, to also demonstrate that nothing aside from that entity therefore exists.

Neuhaus’s Law – where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed. Skepticism, as a goal in and of itself will always escalate to extremism.

Neutrality as Bias Error – the error of assuming that a neutral party will conduct more diligent scientific investigation into a controversial topic than would a sponsor of an idea, when vulnerabilities actually compromise such an approach. Neutral parties are less inclined to be up to date on subject intelligence, may ask the wrong question, may fail to discern validity of data or the difference between authentic research and reactive propaganda, may research the wrong facet of the issue, and might perceive a parsimonious need to result in conforming explanations as looming larger than the plurality introduced by facets of the research.

Nickell Plating – employing accoutrements and affectations of investigation work (field trips, cameras, notebooks, sample bags, etc.), along with an implicit appeal to authority as a skeptic (appeal to skepticism) in an attempt to sell one’s self as conducting science. A social celebrity pretense of investigation, and established authority through a track record of case studies, wherein adornment of lab coats, academic thesis books, sciencey-looking instruments and the pretense of visiting places and taking notes/pictures, etc was portrayed by a posing pseudo-skeptic. In reality the nickell plater is often compensated to ‘investigate’ and socially promote one biased explanation; dismissing the sponsored hypothesis from being considered by actual science research. This is an active part of an embargo process, and was a technique which replaced debunking after it fell from public favor.

Nihilism – a philosophical doctrine that suggests the negation of one or more of the reputedly meaningful or non-material aspects of life. Socially enforced metaphysical, material monist or pseudo scientific naturalism.. The substitution ontology which took the place of Abrahamic Religion in Western academia. The cult and religious doctrine enforcing absolute knowledge as to those things which are deemed ‘natural;’ moreover dictating that nothing exists outside the materials, energies, life forms, features and principles comprised inside an a priori defined and professionally compulsory domain of understanding. A religious presumption that only the physical is real, and that the mental or spiritual can be reduced solely to the physical. A presumption that all observations of phenomena related to consciousness stem from solely a neural configuration of a single biological source. This extraordinary array of claims is justified through specious, scant predictive and selective application of the experimental method; attributing its false empirical basis to a pretense standard of evidence, measurability and repeatability. Rather, Nihilism is an unsubstantiated set of pseudo-scientific claims, misconstrued as atheism and subtly conflated with and pork-barreled inside actual science. It is employed as an instrument to squelch freedom of speech, squelch knowledge through vigilante bullying in the name of skepticism, qualify entrants into scientific and academic professions, screen topics under an embargo policy regarding access to science, control and direct institutions, establish social power; and in similar fashion to its Abrahamic religious precedent, leverage the resulting pervasive ignorance into a position of absolute subjugation of mankind.

Nihilist Romanticism – as Nietzsche cites, Fundamental Nihilism is moot.  As we not only may choose, but without exception have chosen as a mandate, to artificially and personally modify Fundamentalist Nihilism as the conscious will of our skeptical, empirical or secular thinking, or self illusion of such, might deem acceptable.

No True Scotsman Pleading – this fallacy modifies the subject of an assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it offered by an opponent, in complete ad hoc and without reference to any specific objective rule allowing for the exclusion.

Nocebo – something which is inert or not harmful is regarded by its victim to be harmful, and therefore causes harm.

Nocebo Appeal – a nocebo claim which is made in absence of any data, observation or evidence.

Non-merchandising Defense Error – claiming correctness on your part or incorrectness on another party’s part because merchandising or product sales have been conducted in the name of the opposing idea. Anything can be merchandised, that does not de-legitimize the underlying issue involved – but fraud is a tort, even if you do not merchandise it.

Non Rectum Agitur Fallacy – a purposeful abrogation of the scientific method through corrupted method sequence or the framing and asking of the wrong, ill prepared, unit biased or invalid question, conducted as a pretense of executing the scientific method on the part of a biased participant. Applying a step of the scientific method, out of order – so as to artificially force a conclusion, such as providing ‘peer review’ on sponsored constructs and observations, rather than studies and claims, in an effort to kill research into those constructs and observations.

Non Sequitur Accuse – a response which does not follow the logic of a contention made, which furtively seeks to position the contention maker falsely into a prescribed camp of irrationality or non sequitur relationship to the subject being considered. This will usually be delivered in the form of a one liner, memorized talking point or weapon word.

Non Sequitur Evidentia – the false claim that scientific studies have proven or indicated a proponent’s claim to knowledge, when in fact such studies have addressed an equivocally different question or a completely different proof altogether.

Nonaganda – (see Evidence Sculpting or Skulptur Mechanism) a media which does no real investigation, relates 100% accurate fact or even does ‘fact-checking’, yet still ignores 50% of relevance concerning an issue, is still fake news.

Normalcy Bias – the refusal to plan for, consider, or react to, a dramatic exception event or idea which has never happened or been considered before.

Not Invented Here Bias – aversion to contact with or use of products, research, standards, or knowledge developed outside a group in which one is a member or with which one associates.

Novella Shuffle – the sleight of hand mis-definition of protocols of the scientific method or equivocation in relating its principles or the process of peer review, in such a way as to deceive the media and general public into incorrectly understanding a disdained topic or observation or accepting a pseudo scientific approach as constituting actual science.

Novella Split – when one flees from addressing a challenging topic by citing/issuing standardized shallow past doctrines as authority; further then refusing to intellectually or professionally regard the challenging subject or observation ever again. The “My job is done here now” or “I’ve written about this before” cocoon of defensiveness on the part of a fake skeptic.

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

Obdurate – an argument which favors an intellectual or unaffected party seeking ego or power over an injured, at risk or highly involved party, often in a disputation.

Objection sans Contexte – when an objection is raised to argue in opposition, which demonstrates a lack of salient understanding of the principle being argued against.

Observation Denial Special Pleading – a form of spurious data and observation dismissal where a proponent introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details regarding the observation, through alleging a need to apply additional considerations, without proper criticism or vetting of these considerations.

Observation vs Claim Blurring – the false practice of calling an observation of data, 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 supported by sufficient data before they may be regarded by science. In fact an observation is simply that, a piece of evidence or a fact, and its false dismissal under the pretense of being deemed a ‘claim’ is a practice of deception and pseudoscience.

Observational Occam’s Razor Fallacy (Exclusion Bias) – through insisting that observations and data be explained immediately, and through rejecting such a datum based upon the idea that it introduces plurality (it is not simple), one effectively ensures that no data will ever be recognized which serves to frame and reduce a competing alternative.  One will in effect perpetually prove only what they have assumed as true, regardless of the idea’s inherent risk. No competing idea can ever be formulated because outlier data is continuously discarded immediately, one datum at a time by means of ‘simplicity’.

Observer Expectancy Effect – when a researcher expects a given result and therefore unconsciously manipulates an experiment or scientific method or misinterprets data in order to find that expected result.

Occam’s Razor – a false logical construct invented by SSkepticism to replace and change the efficacy of Ockham’s Razor, the latter employed as a viable principle in scientific logic. Occam’s Razor was a twist off the older Ockham’s Razor, which was slight and almost undetectable, but can be used to reverse the applicability of the more valid thought discipline inside of Ockham’s Razor. “All things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one” is a logical fallacy; constituting a completely different and antithetical approach than that of Ockham’s Razor. Occam’s Razor can only result in conformance based explanations, regardless of their scientific validity.

Occam’s Razor Fallacy – abuse of Ockham’s Razor (and misspelling) in order to to enact a process of sciencey-looking ignorance and to impose a favored idea. Can exist in four forms, transactional, existential, observational and utility blindness.

Transactional Occam’s Razor Fallacy (Appeal to Ignorance) – the false contention that a challenging construct, observation or paradigm must immediately be ‘explained.’ Sidestepping of the data aggregation, question development, intelligence and testing/replication steps of the scientific method and forcing a skip right to its artificially conclusive end (final peer review by ‘Occam’s Razor’).

Existential Occam’s Razor Fallacy (Appeal to Authority) – the false contention that the simplest or most probable explanation tends to be the scientifically correct one. Suffers from the weakness that myriad and complex underpinning assumptions, based upon scant predictive/suggestive study, provisional knowledge or Popper insufficient science, result in the condition of tendering the appearance of ‘simplicity.’

Observational Occam’s Razor Fallacy (Exclusion Bias) – through insisting that observations and data be explained immediately, and through rejecting such a datum based upon the idea that it introduces plurality (it is not simple), one effectively ensures that no data will ever be recognized which serves to frame and reduce a competing alternative.  One will in effect perpetually prove only what they have assumed as true, regardless of the idea’s inherent risk. No competing idea can ever be formulated because outlier data is continuously discarded immediately, one datum at a time by means of ‘simplicity’.

Utility Blindness – when simplicity or parsimony are incorrectly applied as excuse to resist the development of a new scientific explanatory model, data or challenging observation set, when indeed the participant refuses to consider or examine the explanatory utility of any similar new model under consideration.

Ockham’s Razor – “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate” or “Plurality should not be posited without necessity.” The words are those of the medieval English philosopher and Franciscan monk William of Ockham (ca. 1287-1347). This principle simply means that, until we have enough evidence to compel us, science should not consider outsider theories. But it also means that once there exists a sufficient threshold of evidence to warrant attention (plurality), then science should seek to address the veracity of a counter claim. SSkeptics bristle at the threat of this logic and have sought to replace this tenet with their shade-change version, “Occam’s Razor.”

Omega Hypothesis (HΩ) – the argument which is foisted to end all argument, period. A conclusion which has become more important to protect, than the integrity of science itself. An invalid null hypothesis or a preferred idea inside a social epistemology. A hypothesis which is defined to end deliberation without due scientific rigor, alternative study consensus or is afforded unmerited protection or assignment as the null. The surreptitiously held and promoted idea or the hypothesis protected by an Inverse Negation Fallacy. Often one which is promoted as true by default, with the knowledge in mind that falsification will be very hard or next to impossible to achieve.

1.  The (Wonka) Golden Ticket – Have we ever really tested the predictive strength of this idea standalone, or evaluated its antithetical ideas for falsification?

Einfach Mechanism – an explanation, theory or idea which resolves a contention under the scientific method solely by means of the strength of the idea itself. An idea which is not vetted by the rigor of falsification, predictive consilience nor mathematical derivation, rather is simply considered such a strong, or Occam’s Razor (sic) simple an idea that the issue is closed as finished science from its proposition and acceptance onward. An einfach mechanism may or may not be existentially true.

2.  Cheater’s Hypothesis – Does an argument proponent constantly insist on a ‘burden of proof’ upon any contrasting idea, a burden that they never attained for their argument in the first place? An answer they fallaciously imply is the scientific null hypothesis; ‘true’ until proved otherwise?

Imposterlösung Mechanism – the cheater’s answer. Employing the trick of pretending that an argument domain which does not bear coherency nor soundness – somehow (in violation of science and logic) falsely merits assignment of a ‘null hypothesis’. Moreover, then that null hypothesis must be assumed sans any real form or context of evidence, or Bayesian science cannot be accomplished. Finally then, that a null hypothesis is therefore regarded by the scientific community as ‘true’ until proved otherwise. A 1, 2, 3 trick of developing supposed scientifically accepted theory which in reality bears no real epistemological, logical, predicate structure nor scientific method basis whatsoever.

3.  Omega Hypothesis (HΩ) – Is the idea so important, that it now stands more important that the methods of science, or science itself. Does the idea leave a trail of dead competent professional bodies behind it?

Höchste Mechanism – when a position or practice, purported to be of scientific basis, is elevated to such importance that removing the rights of professionals and citizens to dissent, speak, organize or disagree (among other rights) is justified in order to protect the position or the practice inside society.

4.  Embargo Hypothesis (Hξ) – was the science terminated years ago, in the midst of large-impact questions of a critical nature which still remain unanswered? Is such research now considered ‘anti-science’ or ‘pseudoscience’?

Entscheiden Mechanism – the pseudoscientific or tyrannical approach of, when faced with epistemology which is heading in an undesired direction, artificially declaring under a condition of praedicate evidentia, the science as ‘settled’.

5.  Evidence Sculpting – has more evidence been culled from the field of consideration for this idea, than has been retained? Has the evidence been sculpted to fit the idea, rather than the converse?

Skulptur Mechanism – the pseudoscientific method of treating evidence as a work of sculpture. Methodical inverse negation techniques employed to dismiss data, block research, obfuscate science and constrain ideas such that what remains is the conclusion one sought in the first place. A common tactic of those who boast of all their thoughts being ‘evidence based’. The tendency to view a logical razor as a device which is employed to ‘slice off’ unwanted data (evidence sculpting tool), rather than as a cutting tool (pharmacist’s cutting and partitioning razor) which divides philosophically valid and relevant constructs from their converse.

Also, the instance common in media wherein so-called ‘fact-based’ media sites tell 100% truth about 50% the relevant story. This is the same as issuing 50% misinformation or disinformation.

6.  Lindy-Ignorance Vortex – do those who enforce or imply a conforming idea or view, seem to possess a deep emotional investment in ensuring that no broach of subject is allowed regarding any thoughts or research around an opposing idea or specific ideas or avenues of research they disfavor? Do they easily and habitually imply that their favored conclusions are the prevailing opinion of scientists? Is there an urgency to reach or sustain this conclusion by means of short-cut words like ‘evidence’ and ‘fact’? If such disfavored ideas are considered for research or are broached, then extreme disdain, social and media derision are called for?

Verdrängung Mechanism – the level of control and idea displacement achieved through skillful employment of the duality between pluralistic ignorance and the Lindy Effect. The longer a control-minded group can sustain an Omega Hypothesis perception by means of the tactics and power protocols of proactive pluralistic ignorance, the greater future acceptability and lifespan that idea will possess. As well, the harder it will to be dethrone as an accepted norm or perception as a ‘proved’ null hypothesis.

Omission Bias – the tendency to judge harmful actions of opponents as worse, or less moral, than equally harmful omissions on the part of allies.

One-Liner – this refers to a cliché that is a commonly used phrase, or folk wisdom, sometimes used to quell cognitive dissonance. It is employed to end and win an argument and imply that science has made a final disposition on a matter long ago, when indeed no such conclusion has ever been reached.

Ontological Projection Error – when an argument is made that a moral choice of one’s own can reliably extrapolate to be the same choice made by a general population holding to the same ontology of the chooser. Because a contending atheist is moral, all other nihilists, atheists and persons under a culture teaching such ideas, will then choose to be moral as well.

Order – the structure and locution of an argument formulated in such a way as to provide a parsimonious deduction or induction critical path, which allows it to be followed or replicated by another party.

Organic Untruth – a constructive form of argument which uses concealed ambiguity at the core of its foundational structure. A statement which is true at face value, but was not true or was of unknown verity during the timeframe, original basis or domain of context under discussion.

Ostrich Effect – the tendency of a person when facing a losing scenario, danger or data which one does not favor, to bury one’s head in the sand and ignore the issue, person or new information.

Otherwise Lacks Status Error – the permissive malpractice of disqualifying a subject, study or researcher from science by ignoring it as a discipline, or blocking its access to science and researchers, and therefore citing that it lacks any status in science or inside a method of science.

Outcome Error – judging a decision based on the outcome of the decision rather than by the soundness of the methodology which went into make the decision. Ends justify the means.

Outgroup Homogeneity Bias – individuals see members of their own group as being relatively more varied than members of other groups.

Overconfidence Effect – excessive confidence in one’s own answers to questions based on ego, past success or one being an expert or scientist.

Oversteering – when a proponent cites a trailing statistic to provide underpinning justification for proactive intervention to adjust independent influences input to a system. Desiring instantaneous appearance of unanimity among all statistics comprised by a system, both errant in the meaning of the statistics themselves as well as the validity of statistical unanimity entailing superior utility.

P-value Amaurosis – the ironic state of a study or argument wherein there exists more confidence in the accuracy of the percentage significance in measure (p-value), than of the accuracy of its measured contention in the first place.

Paralogism – is a form of linear reasoning, which might appear to be coherent inside a stand alone or twisted context, however is based upon false underpinnings in the first place, which may or may not be fully recognized.

Pareidolia Bias – a presumption that any challenging observation can only be solely the result of vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) errantly perceived as significant by the observer.

Parem Falsum – the presumption or contention that since a person is a scientist or speaks as an authority on science, they are more qualified to make conclusions and tender opinions in fields of expertise they do not hold, and moreover be regarded as authority over actual experts (both scientists and lay persons) in that field of expertise.

Parsimony – the resistance to expand explanatory plurality or descriptive complexity beyond what is absolutely necessary, combined with the wisdom to know when to do so.

Pedantic Smokescreen – the process of deluding self regarding or the process of employing the exclusive and unique principles of science to obscure and justify activities which would otherwise constitute fraud and malfeasance in business and legal domains.

Peer Review Gaming – when a study is accused of ‘not following the scientific method,’ when in fact it was denied method, via blocked access to peer review channels, journals and protocols.

Pejorative Appeal to Ignorance – when one raises a question in a media or social context, which by its mere asking serves to bring under suspicion or impugns the character of another person, regardless of what its ultimate determination turns out to be. A method of character assassination disguised as mere ‘fact checking’.

Penultimate Set Bias – the contention or implication on the part of a proponent of an idea that they personally hold enough validated conclusion base or data to assume that the gaps in their knowledge will have little or no effect on the veracity of their further conclusions; and therefore they should not be brought into question. The implicit claim being that the proponent holds a ‘next to the last thing knowable’ domain of knowledge on the topic in question. The ‘God of the Gaps’ one liner is typically employed as an apologetic by this false claimant to authority.

Penultimate Set Fallacy – the furtive presumption expressed or implied by a claimant, that enough knowledge is held by the claimant to reduce or eliminate the salient impact of unknowns within a discussed domain. In this inductive logical fallacy of presumption it is implied that unknowns inside a domain are all identified, further then they constitute an insignificant impact on the domain, and/or finally that this minority of unknowns in no way compromises a claim to authority. This fallacy is a danger when employing the ‘God of the Gaps’ counter argument inside natural theory, which while valid as an argument in a generic sense, becomes invalid when contended based on a Penultimate Set fallacy. Penultimate in this context means that the claimant presumes to hold ‘the next to last piece of information knowable.’ It is fallacious in the logical sense that ‘we do not know, what we do not know.’

Per Hoc Aditum – according to this approach. The ethical skepticism version of provisional or stacked arguments, which allow for the examination of a postulate, construct or theory in an unbiased pathway of consideration; often as one of a plural set of explanatory approaches. The ability to hold more than one explanatory pathway in mind and fairly consider the strengths, shortfalls and ramifications of each without a priori based beliefs or prejudices unduly influencing the ability to discern the core argument/application at hand.

Perfect Solution Fallacy – when solutions to challenging observations are rejected because they are not perfect or the sponsors of the underlying ideas are not perfect.

Permissive – an argument which is presented as neutral to falsely appearing to be in support of an idea, crafted in equivocal or ambiguous language, which can be also taken to support, permit, encourage or authorize antithetical conclusions.

Perpetual Victim Fallacy – when a person makes the case that they possess or a group possesses license to practice hatred or bias against others not like them, because they or their group has faced an historical and ongoing (and in reality never completely resolvable under the measures they presume) discrimination or bias against them. Racial, religious or gender tu quoque.

Persuasion Abuse – in addition to approach, characterization and substantiation, all types of persuasion as well may be abused through invalid technique, while several persuasion types are simply invalid altogether.

Persuasion stemming from ethos – arguments which stir from what ought to be, from a moral, enlightening, advancing, risk averse or harm minimization standpoint.

Persuasion stemming from logos – arguments which employ the order of logic, reason or goal attainment in assembling a solution.

Persuasion stemming from pathos – arguments which stir from passion, allegiance, opposition or hatred which may or may not interfere with the objectivity of the participant.

Philippic (Tirade) – a negative, condemning or dismissively neutral attack on a position via appeals to common sense, stupidity, rationality or specific set of assumptions.

phronêsis – practical, experienced based, impious wisdom. Aristotle contended that all free persons are born with the potential to become ethically virtuous and practically wise. Setting aside the appeals to virtue (moralism), and to goodwill (benevolence), the domain of ethics resides outside and overlaps both; but its signature hallmark is born in those who exhibit practical experience and the wisdom from which it stems. Being practically wise involves the practice of and allegiance to a professionally based set of methodology. A methodology targeting an increase in overall understanding, defense of those processes which enable it and opposition to all forces which seek to establish ignorance.

Placebo – something which is inert and non beneficial is regarded by its beneficiary to be helpful, and therefore helps.

Placebo Appeal – a placebo claim which is made in absence of any data, observation or evidence.

Placebo Effect – when simply believing or being told that something will have an effect on you, causes one to indeed experience that effect.

Placebo Effect Error – when ascribing an outcome as being a result of a placebo effect, when the outcome is causally dissociated from the placebo itself and cannot possibly be a result of a psychological or placebo bias.

Planck Acceptance – acceptance of a persistent construct or theory simply through the passing of the skeptics who denied it. Derived from Maxwell Planck’s citing that a truth is never accepted until its opponents die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Planck Paradigm Shift – the final peer review. Science which is denied and squelched through manipulation of process and refusal to tender peer review eventually triumphs, not 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.

Planning Fallacy – the tendency to underestimate the amount of science and method involved in adequate address of a subject, or of task-completion times conducted therein.

Platitude – a flat, dull, or trite remark, especially one uttered as if it were fresh or profound. A one-liner, especially if uttered as if it delivered scientific or technical expertise.

Plausible Conformance – a technique of obfuscation employed by SSkeptics to enforce a classic or predetermined conforming conclusion inside a pluralistic set of observations/data. The explanation is oft touted to be in compliance with science and an erroneous interpretation of “Occam’s Razor (sic)” wherein the ‘simplest explanation tends to be the correct one.’ In reality, the proposed conforming scenario, while seeming simple in concept, is highly complicated in its viability or application, and often constitutes an impossible explanation of the data set which has been observed. Plausible Conformance therefore is a method of thought control and data filtering and in no way represents science falsification hierarchy protocols nor the scientific method.

Plausible Deniability – a state of avoidance of the scientific method in which efforts to study an item are blocked, in favor of a standing prophylactic deniability explanatory scenario which acts in lieu of the scientific method. The deniability scenario is often conforming, however does not have to necessarily present Plausible Conformance. Sometimes the deniability scenario must be sufficiently outlandish enough to deflect the risk of research into very challenging/paradigm shifting observations (Extraordinary observations demand extraordinary denials).

Plenary Science – a conclusion of science or a method of science which is fully researched, complete in alternative address, entire in its domain of necessity-based research, absolute in its determinations and unqualified by agenda, special pleading or conditions. A conclusion which is complete in every reasonable avenue of examination; fully vetted or constituted by all entitled to conduct such review/research. This plenary entitled group to include the sponsors who raised Ockham’s Razor necessity in the first place, as well as those stakeholders who will be directly placed at risk by such a conclusion or research avenue’s ramifications.

Pleonasm – is the use of more words or parts of words than is necessary for clear expression, in an attempt to load language supporting, or add judgmental bias to a contention. A form of hyperbole.

Pluralistic Ignorance – a situation in which a majority of scientists and researchers privately reject a norm, but incorrectly assume that most other scientists and researchers accept it, often because of a misleading portrayal of consensus by agenda carrying social skeptics. Therefore they choose to go along with something with which they privately dissent or are neutral.

Pluralistic Single Plurocratic Fallacy – a special pleading wherein one claims that their argument applies not to just one version of its claim, but all possible versions of its claim – while failing to define a distinction of such versions – so as to cover all bases in advance. An atheist rejects belief in god ‘of any kind.’ It is therefore a special pleading distinction without a difference.

Plurality – adding complexity to an argument. Introducing for active consideration, more than one idea, construct or theory attempting to explain a set of data, information or intelligence. Also, the adding of features or special pleading to an existing explanation, in order to adapt it to emerging data, information or intelligence – or in an attempt to preserve the explanation from being eliminated through falsification.

Plurality Error – adding complexity without merit to an argument. Introducing for active consideration, more than one idea, construct or theory attempting to explain a set of data, information or intelligence when there is no compelling reason to do so. Also, the adding of features or special pleading to an existing explanation, in order to adapt it to emerging data, information or intelligence – or in an attempt to preserve the explanation from being eliminated through falsification.

Plurocratic Aggregation Fallacy – wherein one provides a sufficient number of special pleadings or such mechanisms so as to be able to make the claim that others are in fact, with or without their knowledge, actually a part of the proponent’s chosen group.

Plurocratic Fallacy – when one develops an argument or theory so replete with special pleading or pluralistically complicated, that it can accommodate or appear to be supported by pretty much any data which is observed.

Poe – assuming that Poe’s Law will afford one the luxury of comically or fanatically masquerading as a ridiculous strawman or extreme characterization of a member of a disliked camp of thinking.

Poetry – an argument which seeks first to sway the heart of the listener (sans flattery) and soften resistance to a point or position, encouraging ethos, before its presentation. An argument expressed inside the purity of art. The opposite of rhetoric. A passion which seeks alleviation of suffering and not the targeting of an opponent.

Polemic – negative attempt to an affirm a specific understanding via attacks on a contrary position.

Policy Based Evidence Manipulation – when an Einfach or Höchste Mechanism is enforced socially by a governing body or a group enforcing false consensus and pluralistic ignorance to such an extent that the researching, data collection, analytical, legislative or other presiding research group is incentivized to construct objective adjustments to the data collection entailed around the issue being enforced.  Such adjustments, while often scientifically justifiable, introduce bias in two ways: 1) equally scientific counter adjustments are not considered (error by omission), and 2) the magnitude of such adjustments are left up to the sole discretion of the data analysis group. This introduces a guaranteed bias into most information sets featuring a high number or dynamic set of contributing factors/influences or a high number of measurement points.

Poll Skewing Factors – well known in industry, but ignored by ‘statisticians’ in highly contested or manipulated public polls:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VIII.   Follow Through Effect – only 35 to 55% of people who are polled, on average, will actually turn out to vote.

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

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

Popper Demarcation Malpractice – the dilettante presumption that if any set of claims or theory is innately non-falsifiable, it belongs to the domain of pseudoscience. Wrongly presuming a subject to be a pseudoscience, instead of false practices pretending to be science. Purposely or unskillfully conflating the methods of science with the body of scientific knowledge, employing amphibology or proxy equivocation in their articulation of the issue, wherein every proposed claim about what distinguishes science from pseudoscience can be confused with a counter-example. This renders the demarcation boundary of no utility, and reduces overall understanding.

Popper Demarcation Non-Science – purported science which simply seeks results supporting a preexisting or favored explanation. Suffers from the weakness that real science seeks to falsify, relate, predict and problem solve; understanding that a force-to-conformance does none of this.

Popper Error – when relying on the weak positions of predictive studies, statistical analyses, a ‘study of studies,’ associative and correlative studies, or series of anecdotes to stand as sufficient basis for peer review and/or acceptance of a shaky contention. Such studies are more appropriate for plurality screening, not proof.

Popper Fallacy – when a predictive study confirming a hypotheses is abused to dismiss falsification based data or a competing hypotheses, because confirmatory evidence is easy to find and falsification evidence is comparatively of a higher rigor in origin.

Pork-Barreling/Blurring – the practice of shifting the context of an accepted tenet of science or broadening the definitions involved in the principle, in order to appear to imply that science includes proof of additional ideas personally or religiously favored by the SSkeptic. Blurring – to the converse, using the same tactics with opposing viewpoints to imply that science has condemned or disproved them; when in fact no such event has occurred.

Praedicate Evidentia – any of several forms of exaggeration or avoidance in qualifying a lack of evidence, logical calculus or soundness inside an argument.

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.

Praedicate Evidentia Modus Ponens – 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.

Predicate – a datum, experiment or element of philosophy or logic which is established as true, and provides deductive support for a successive proposition. Almost exclusively predictive in its employment, a predicate may itself have been derived through falsification. A postulate or corollary relate to laws, but are sometimes used synonymous to predicate.

Predictive Counter to Singular Existential Statement – when citing predictive evidence employed to counter a contention which is made as a Singular Existential Statement, ie. contending that x exists. Attempting to disprove the contention that something exists, by citing the number of hoaxes or antithetical cases regarding the contended subject.

Predictive Fallacy – the fallacy of applying predictive studies which show the lack of evidence of a particular set of data, in an unconstrained domain of evidence, and presuming this to be scientifically indicative of the Evidence of Absence.

Predictive Promotion of a Universal Statement – when citing predictive evidence employed to promote the idea that the set of X is comprised wholly and only by type x members. Attempting to show that all data in a contention is hoaxed by providing small sample evidence of hoaxing.

Prejucation – the state of possessed knowledge and training or process of producing an individual who is programmed to obfuscate allowance of access to science on behalf of specific targeted topics. A teaching bound in misinformation, religious principles conflated with science, or intimidation and fear to such an extent that a mental barrier is established regarding specific subjects in the mind of its programmed victims. The social training programs and teaching promoted by Social Skepticism imbedded inside any curriculum into which they have material input.

Premise – a proposition that provides support to an argument’s conclusion. An argument may have one or more premises.

Press Box Poser – pretending to be competent to critique, represent or act as an authority in an industry or discipline, when in fact one has never conducted a study, application research, formulated policy, run a business in, employed people in, filed a patent in, or otherwise conducted any diligent professional activity in the critiqued topic discipline.

Presumptive Objection – when an objection is raised to argue in opposition, based on an a priori assumption of what the opponent is contending, or a prescribed version of what the objection raiser presumes or would like the opponent to be saying.

Prevaricate – to lie through manipulating in advance of a point, its basis of definition, observation or data, or by means of persuasion, locution and/or tactic of argument.

Primer – a review of past valid or strong arguments, or a summary of tenets, predicates or propositions which prepare and add clarity to the outlay of a successive argument or story.

The Principle of Benevolence – Benevolence should necessarily be elegant. Sufficient elegance spoils its beneficiary. Therefore benevolence mandates struggle.

Principle of Diminishing Percentage – over time, an increase in a cumulative amount which is the same each period, will represent a lower and lower percentage increase over each successive previous periods’ percentage – tendering the appearance of a reduction in growth to those who do not understand basic statistics. A common press headline trick is ‘lower percentage growth’ used as a way of implying a ‘reduction’.

Pro Innovation Bias – the tendency to have an excessive optimism towards technology or science’s ability to shed light into a subject or advance understanding, while often failing to identify its limitations and weaknesses, and habitually dismissing all other methods.

Probabilistic Fallacy – the presumption that one holds enough data to determine what is probable and improbable in a field of a set of data.

Problem of Induction – a variety of forms of argument which either suffer from Popper’s problem of induction, demarcation or in some way imply or claim scientific completion or consensus, when such a standard has either not been attained in fact, or only exhibited inductive consilience.

Procreation Deafness – also known as ‘pussy logic’. The habit of some shallow or prejudiced women in that they will only regard as significant, input from men whom they regard as attractive enough to have sex with.

Procrustean Bed – an arbitrary standard to which exact conformity is forced, in order to artificially drive a conclusion or adherence to a specific solution. The undesirable practice of tailoring data to fit its container or some other preconceived argument being promoted by a carrier of an agenda.

Procrustean Solution – the undesirable practice of tailoring data to fit its container or some other preconceived argument being promoted by a carrier of an agenda.

Professional Victim – a person who seeks to leverage to their financial, intellectual or social advantage a perception of being a victim of some action on another stakeholder’s part. The purpose is to simultaneously injure the targeted stakeholder and at the same time enrich the purported victim. Such a method becomes habitual and increases in shrillness over time if left unchecked. A professional victim is in reality the abuser.

Projection Bias – the tendency to unconsciously assume that others (or one’s future selves) share one’s current emotional states, thoughts, ideas, beliefs and values.

Projection Error – when an argument is made that a one’s own choices and perception can reliably extrapolate to represent the same choices and perceptions of those constituting a general population holding to the same allegiances of the arguer.

Promotification – one or a series of predictive experiments touted as scientific, yet employed in such a fashion as to mislead, impugn, obfuscate or delay. Deception or incompetence wherein only predictive testing methodology was undertaken in a hypothesis reduction hierarchy when more effective falsification pathways or current evidence were readily available, but were ignored. The pseudoscience practice of only developing, or the forcing the sponsor of an idea/set of observations, as a first priority to only fully develop, evidence in support of or a series of predictive-only tests which merely serve to confirm conventional or conforming explanations of that data in question. It suffers from the Penultimate Set Fallacy, the weakness that it affords no disciplined falsification comparatives under Developmental Science Methodology, assumes that there is no aggregate or other data on the subject, enforces a priori testing hierarchies in absence of knowing what question to ask, and refuses to acknowledge differing research protocols under Discovery Science Methodology.

Promotification Pseudo Science – especially in discovery science methodology, the pseudoscience practice of only developing, or the forcing the sponsor of an idea/set of observations, as a first priority to only fully develop, evidence in support of or a series of predictive-only tests which merely serve to confirm conventional or conforming explanations of that data in question. The act of advertising this methodology as being representative of the ‘scientific method.’

Proof by Assertion – a proposition is reworded in a politically correct, jingo-ish, SSkeptic one-liner, or false professional way such as to hope that its re-expression will validate it, despite previous contradiction.

Proof by Celebrity – submission of others to an argument so over-addressed by biased celebrities, disdained and fraught with media ridicule so as to not reasonably be able to deal with in at any relevant depth or via salient data or argument.

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.

Proof by Verbosity – submission of others to an argument too complex, meandering and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details.

Proof Gaming – 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 six 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 Pollyanna – when one has a tendency to cite a need for smoking gun proof as their standard of research and science, while not realizing that most of science hinges on Peer Acceptance and rarely on a single or sample case “Proof.”

Propaganda – when disseminating authorized, conclusive and pre-digested information via media and channels of public update, under a condition in which none of the promoters of such information are qualified to report it, nor understand its technical basis or ramifications, nor are allowed to question such information or its underpinning arguments/data.

Proposition – statement that is either true or false, but not both. For example, tungsten has a larger atomic mass than does lithium.

Proquivocation – when in the domain of propaganda, locution errors, equivocation or amphibology stemming from ignorance or mistake are indistinguishable from locution errors, equivocation or amphibology stemming from malfeasance or prevarication.

Prosecutor’s Fallacy – a low probability of valid detections does not mean a low probability of some valid detection or data being found.

Proving Too Much – using a form of argument to counter observations or ideas, that if it were valid, could imply extrapolated absurd conclusions which cannot be valid, therefore the base argument is invalid, regardless of the data.

Provisional Argument – a construct or a framework explanation not presented yet as true, rather which is contending for plurality based on salient and relevant evidence which does not yet complete a fully deductive or inductive chain of reason, or has not been fully confirmed by empirical observation. Often presented to lay claim to credit for an idea for further research before others craft similar thought, much as with a provisional patent.

Construct – a provisional argument which is not yet mature enough to be called a hypothesis; yet which has some suggestive evidence or ideas behind it.

Plausible Deniability – a provisional argument which is foisted solely for its outcome in blocking the introduction of an opposing explanation or theory. In practice this is often done with little or no suggestive evidence behind it and is validated or declared true simply based upon its plausibility rather than quality, structure or basis.

Provisional Knowledge – the contrivance of a series of purposed provisional arguments, into a stack of probable explanations wherein we ignore the increasing unlikelihood of our conclusions and simply consider the stack of plurality to be proscribed; and eventually by Neuhaus’s Law, prescribed.

Proxy Equivocation – the forcing of a new or disliked concept or term, into the definition of an older context, concept or term, in order to avoid allowing discrete attention to be provided to the new concept or term. Often practiced through calling the new concept/term, falsely, a neologism or brush off with the statement ‘that idea has already been addressed.’

Proxy Proselyte – a newly indoctrinated person possessing an energetic Pollyanna vulnerability (see the Ten Pillars), along with a lack of depth, experience and circumspect wisdom; who is exploited into a role of win-at-all-costs enlistment under the cause identified by a God Proxy.

Pseudo Dissent – when claiming to make an argument for skepticism and suspension of belief, when in fact one is promoting denial of the concept or idea at hand, or is an activist promoting the antithetical idea.

Pseudo Parsimony (Crocodile Tears) – tendering the appearance of seriously contemplating the downside of an action, argument or circumstance, when in fact one is completely supportive of the occurrence, as it works to one’s advantage or supports a favored agenda.

Pseudo-Refutation – a common 1-2-3 step charade of social skeptics in false refutation structure and logical calculus; employed as a ruse of conducting science. To 1) cite any fallacy an opponent has possibly made, 2) employ that fallacy as the basis to declare the opponent ‘wrong’, and moreover then 3) issue an inductive counter of their contention, bearing ample information and hidden conjecture, which tenders appearance that the social skeptic is smarter than the opponent (ingens vanitatum) and has successfully refuted their contention. When in fact, nothing of the sort was achieved and/or a deductive falsification approach was avoided, which was already readily at hand. The focus is not on the validity of the argument or any particular truth, rather in aggrandizing the social skeptic and belittling his opponent.

Pseudo Scientific Naturalism – when one employs or implies furtive hyperbole as to what science has concluded, eliminated, disproved or studied, foisted to proactively preclude one’s personal or a group’s belief set from being qualified as a religion.

Pseudoscience – disposition of ideas as constituting science or non-science based on their subject matter alone, in lieu of employment of scientific method. A methodology or conclusion which over-relies upon predictive study, confirmation or dismissive skepticism. A claim or conclusion which is presented as current best science or as being derived from the scientific method, when in fact such contentions are false.

Pseudoscience Disposition Malpractice – designation of a research effort as constituting pseudoscience by means of restricting access to, or by conflating or misrepresenting the diligent steps of science.

Pseudo-Skeptics – critics who assert negative claims, but who mistakenly call themselves ‘skeptics,’ often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on them at all. A result of this is that many critics seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence.” – Marcello Truzzi (Founding Co-chairman of CSICOP)

Pseudo-Theory/Pseudo-Prophecy – a theory which is purported to be successful at induction and predictive power, yet as well, is able to explain everything observed. A theory which explains everything, probably explains nothing.  In similar principle, a prophecy which is vague enough such that it could apply to virtually any culture at any time, based on the preponderance of sets of circumstances historically – is not a prophecy at all.

Psychogenetic Fallacy – inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. It is wrong to assume that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased or credulous mind, then the idea itself must also be a false.

Psychologism – when psychology plays the sole or central role in underpinning facts or explaining a non-psychological fact or principle expressed as constituting accepted knowledge. Suffers from the weakness that psychological principles enjoy a perch which can never be falsified, therefore they are at risk of standing as pseudoscience.

Psychologism Authority – recitations purported to be of scientific origin in which psychology plays a central role in gathering, grounding or explaining some other, non-psychological type of fact or law attempting to be established. Suffers from the weakness that psychological recitations enjoy a perch which can never be falsified, therefore they are at risk of standing as pseudoscience.

Publication Bias – an effect observed by Sterling and Rosenthal (also called the ‘File Draw Problem’) wherein a bias toward publishing conforming, confirming or positive results studies, as opposed to negative or null result studies, or an over-reliance upon p-value bias, will inevitably lead to a whipsaw effect of both filtering negative results studies and unduly canonizing as fact, empirical conclusions of questionable merit.

Qualitas Clava Error – club quality error. The presumption on the part of role-playing or celebrity-power-seeking social skeptics that their club or its power, is important in ensuring the quality of science and scientific understanding on the part of the broader population. The presumption that external club popularity and authority, lock step club allegiance and presumptive stacks of probable knowledge will serve to produce valid or quality outcomes inside scientific, rational or critical thought processes. The pretense of encouraging skepticism, while at the same time promoting conclusions. Such thought fails in light of time proven quality improvement practices.

Quotidie Mortem – the psychopathic belief that through the administering of a poison slowly over time, one is not actually killing the person or persons they seek to murder. Often defended by the quip “The dose makes the poison.”

Quoting out of Context Fallacy – a proponent’s selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning, in order to impugn or support specific ideas.

Rational Thinking – a demonstrated ability to handle plurality with integrity.

Rat’s Option – when the appearance of a choice is offered, however the only option offered is a preordained path which involves a trap.

Reach Around – an award or accolade given within clubs of particular thinking, to other members of the same club for ‘celebrating a visible and championing club member’ in order to increase the club member’s viability as an authority; in contrast to an accolades tendered for a lifelong pursuit of work on behalf of mankind, or in development of mercy, infrastructures, economies or new technologies.

Reactance – the urge to do the opposite of what someone wants you to do out of a need to resist a perceived attempt to force you out of a constrained adopted choice.

Reactive Devaluation – devaluing proposals, observations, data or ideas only because they purportedly originated with an adversary group or individual.

Reactive Dissonance (in business and legal domains, also called ‘malfeasance’) – the fallacious habitual mindset of a researcher or doctrine of a group conducting research, wherein when faced with a challenging observation, study or experiment outcome, to immediately set aside rational data collection, hypothesis reduction and scientific method protocols in favor of crafting a means to dismiss the observation.

Recency Bias – the tendency to accept more recent information as being more credible or holding more gravitas in research.

Recidivism – a tendency, despite personal perception or intention otherwise, to relapse into a previous condition or mode of behavior when the spotlight is removed from a person who is posing as a skeptic or virtue signalling.

Reciprocating Effect – cause and effect are reversed, then reversed again, over and over in a chicken and egg relationship. The effector hysteria around an observation is said to be the cause of it, and then vice versa, ad infinitum. It assumes no validity to the basic genesis of the argument.

Red Herring – presentation of an argument that may or may not be logically valid on its own, but distracts the discussion away from a failing argument, as well as failing nonetheless to address the context of the issue in question or address its logical validity.

Redactionary Principle – the lifecycle management of chemicals, adjuvants or biological agents which do not indicate immediate classic major pathology pathways in test animals, into a final phase of testing upon the broader human population, in order to speed them to market and generate revenue during long term employment testing. Establishment of activist ‘skeptics’ to patrol and ensure any failures are squelched as constituting only pseudoscience and anecdote.

Reducibility – the ability of an argument (as as the case in mathematics) to reduce the complexity of a question and focus in on the core argument instead – eliminating all irrelevant, dependent, unresolvable, unsolvable and incoherent ideas competing for resolution.

Reductionist’s Error – when one demands evidence recitation which cannot possibly be provided because the argument is over a point of philosophy or well established precedent of no particular origin. Demanding evidence for 2 + 2 = 4, or ‘charity is love.’

Referential Reification Fallacy – assuming all words refer to existing and mature elements of science, and that the meaning of words are implicitly qualified within the things they refer to; then further presupposing that this referential definition employed then is also mature enough to be employed to discredit a contended set of observations or ideas.

Refutation – a negative or neutral criticism against an attack or position.

Regressive Bias – a certain state of mind wherein perceived high likelihoods are overestimated while perceived low likelihoods are underestimated.

Reification Fallacy – assuming that sciencey sounding words refer to existing and mature elements of science, and that the meaning of words are implicitly qualified within the things they refer to.

Relegation Error – the moment complimentary medicine or a pseudoscience produces a success, that success becomes part of medicine or science, and is ripped off from integrative medicine or the pseudoscience. The pretense is then foisted that ‘science’ developed this success. So by fait accompli under this method integrative medicine or a controversial avenue of research will always constitute anecdotal pseudoscience, by practice alone.

Relevance – the nature of a proposition such that it is consistent with an argument or adds to its value, clarity or quality.

Religion – the compulsory adherence to an idea around which testing for falsification is prohibited.

Religion of Negative Reactance – if one adopts a set of tenets or a lie of allegiance, even if that set of beliefs does not qualify as a religion in and of itself, solely as a reaction to a religion one has departed from recently or in the past, and/or as a way of seeking revenge or retribution or cathartic reward over past hurts and regrets regarding one’s membership in the former religion – then one is simply operating inside a duality and indeed has simply adopted another religion.

Researcher’s Conundrum – if I conduct objective research inside a subject which is a pseudoscience, then I am considered a pseudo-scientist. However, if I dismiss the subject out of hand, with no research, then I am regarded as having been scientific in my approach.

Restraint Bias – the tendency to overestimate one’s ability to show restraint or demonstrate character in the face of temptation to behave badly. The overestimation of the acts of others as being beneath your level of sophisticated self control.

Retrospective Causality – the argument that because some event has occurred, its occurrence must have been caused by a conforming plausible impetus, such as hype and hysteria, and not any other influence.

Rhetoric – a critique which focuses on an arguer’s ability, technique or capability to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations. An answer looking for a question, looking for a victim. Persuasion and Locution crafted in such a fashion as to be the reverse of science. A method of fooling the educated and scientifically trained, into adopting shaky positions of consensus.

Rhetorical Tautology – employment of phrase or principle in such a way as to imply that its offing as stated is of patently obvious, self justifying or intrinsic epistemological merit, while evading issues of evidence or valid reasoning supporting the stated principle or phrase.

Rhetosophy – Rhetoric disguised as philosophy; wherein the arguer conceals his subject of contention and crafts the philosophy to appear as a stand alone ethic, independent of the point he is surreptitiously attempting to persuade.

Rhyme as Reason Effect – rhyming statements are perceived as more truthful.

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

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

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

Risk Flippance – the tendency to judge the total risk of a series of transactional events to be equivalent to the risk identified for only one single event in the series.

Rookem’s Razor – the method wherein the most expensive, fee generating or most oligarch profitable explanation tends to be the correct one at any given time. Medicine in which a symptom is investigated first as if it were cancer, and through the most expensive testing, before considering vastly more likely alternative diagnoses.

Salience – the nature of predicate, constraint or premise wherein it adds value, clarity or quality to an argument.

Salience Projection – our tendency to focus on the most outstanding or notable features regarding a concept or person as indicating likelihood inside the concept or predictability of a person.

Sargon’s Law – whenever an ideologue makes a character judgement about someone they are debating with, that character judgement is usually true about themselves.

Scarecrow – a high visibility claim that an opposing group has proposed ideas which are of patently ludicrous viability; when in fact no such theories or ideas have been proposed by the disliked group, and moreover that the only broaching of such a construct, theory or idea originates solely from the claiming group itself. Extreme Straw Man.

Schadenfreude/Epicaricacy – schadenfreude is the enjoyment of witnessing the misfortune of others through their own mistake, accident or self inflicted agony. In contrast, epicariacy is the enjoyment of witnessing the harm one individual receives at the hands of another, usually maliciously-minded party. The similar English expression would be ‘Roman holiday’, a metaphor from the poem Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage by George Gordon (Lord Byron) wherein a gladiator in ancient Rome expects to be “butchered to make a Roman holiday,” i.e. the audience would take pleasure from watching his forced suffering at another’s hands. The term suggests motives of pleasure or political expediency beyond simple schadenfreude; consisting more of debauchery and exploitation for gain in addition to sadistic enjoyment. One exception to both meanings, and common mistake in their application however, is citing schadenfreude or epicariacy in the case where one is witnessing a temper tantrum. Temper tantrums are intended forms of violence upon others, and in no way reflect a person being in a state of misfortune or harm.

Science – the dispassionate idempotent process of skeptical observation, necessity, questioning, constructing, testing, reducing and consensus by which society builds the body of knowledge; as well as that body of knowledge itself which results from such process.

¡science! – lying through tendering the appearance of being scientific (pseudoscience). A process made to look like science, which is 25% assumption, 25% outdated or semi-relevant study, 25% derision and bullying and 25% false claims to consensus. Partly testing a favored hypothesis and declaring it true, coupled with blocking of testing on competing ideas and declaring all of them false or pseudoscience.

Science as the Sciences Error – constrained misdefinition and equivocation of the word science to, rather than the method and body of knowledge development, a restrictive domain of the academic sciences alone. This so that skepticism is free to now errantly be applied in any fashion ‘outside of science.’

Science Bundling – citing a couple accepted norms of science and then throwing into the bundle a contention which is contested, political or questionable. This in order to intimidate a neutral audience into accepting the questionable assertion as being equal in regard with the other scientific norms. Often practiced by political bloggers and propaganda journalists. This is practiced as well in the pejorative, citing that a person’s beliefs or contentions are equivalent to Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, BigFoot and Flat Earth Theory.

Science Communicator – as distinct from a journalist or investigative reporter. In totalitarian societies a ‘communicator’ is a emergent stage of progressive takeover and indoctrination, which offers the population time to step into line. The communicators arrive before the enforcement officials, who arrive before the Maršal (Marshals), who arrive before the military police; whereupon absolute control of rule is enforced, usually under a dictator. A science communicator is not a recognized entity in a free press.

Science Delusion – coined by Rupert Sheldrake, this is the belief that science has already ascertained the principal components of the nature of reality, and that only a small portion of the unknown details remains to be filled in. Ethical skepticism supports bringing attention to this cognitive mistake, but rather than deeming it an error of science, instead identifies the problem as our social influences which corrupt the common underlying philosophy in defense of science, skepticism. What is known as social skepticism.

Science Faction Bias – the forcing of authors, dramas, screenplays, movies and storytellers of science fiction to compulsively conform to an observer’s personal version of science. An irritation with imagination if it wanders into realms which disagree with the observer’s personal ontology, sold as being indignant over violations of established science.

Science-Pseudoscience Bifurcation – the mistaken belief that a non-science is the same thing as a pseudoscience, that a pseudoscience is a topic or avenue of research, and that a pseudoscience can eventually become a science. When in fact only a non-science can become a science, because pseudoscience is simply a pretense and a false method, and not a topic in the first place.

Sciencewashing – both the existential state or the actions involved in dressing up a corporate profit or monist control motivated agenda as “the science”.

Scientific Resilience – ability of a society to perceive and deliberate a course of discovery and development which targets the alleviation of suffering; one which rehabilitates its scientific methodology and knowledge gracefully and robustly to misfortune, mistake or change.

Scientific Shilliteracy – a claim to scientific authority, which is belied through display of scientific ineptness.

Scooby-Doo Science/Scientist – a mindset born by fake skeptics wherein every mystery is easily resolved by current science understanding or the pretense that science has studied a subject when it has not – a ‘science’ which also features a convenient ability to highlight the bad person in the argument – usually of a consistent gender and ethnicity.

Scoop Abuse – when a social skepticism media outlet inflates methodical cynicism and twists maligns or lies about the facts of an event in order to increase their media outlet notoriety at the expense of a disliked individual, who sponsors or considers ideas which they do not want communicated.

Scoop Inflation – when a social skepticism media outlet inflates methodical cynicism and twists maligns or lies about the facts of an event in order to increase their media outlet notoriety in becoming the first cynical news outlet to condemn new ideas or events which they do not want communicated.

Script Delusion – a person who argues from a scripted set of talking points is under the delusion both that the recipient has never heard their information before, and that the hearer regards what they have to say as honest reflections, science or free thinking.

Sculptured Narrative – a social declaration which fits a predetermined agenda, purported to be of ‘weight of evidence’ and science in origin. However, in reality stems more from only the removal/ignoring of the majority or plurality of available or ascertainable evidence, in order to sculpt a conclusion which was sought before research ever began (see Wittgenstein sinnlos Skulptur Mechanism). Conducting science by dwelling only in the statistical and meta-analytical domains while excising all data which does not fit the social narrative of funding entities, large corporations or sskeptic organizations. Refusing to conduct direct studies, publishing studies which contain an inversion effect and filtering of countermanding studies out by attacking journals, authors and ignoring large bodies of evidence, consilience or falsification opportunity.

Secundum Quid – comes about from failing to appreciate the distinction between using words absolutely and using them with qualification. Spruce trees, for example, are green with respect to their foliage (they are ‘green’ with qualification); it would be a mistake to infer that they are green absolutely because they have brown trunks and branches.

Segal’s Law – a man with a watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never sure.

Self Confirming Process – a process which is constructed to only find the answer which was presumed before its formulation. A lexicon, set of assumptions or data, procedure or process of logical calculus which can only serve to confirm a presupposed answer it was designed to find in the first place. A process which bears no quality control, review, or does not contain a method through which it can reasonably determine its own conclusion to be in question or error.

Semantics Jousting – the twisting of the context inside which a quotation of authority or a recitation or scientific principle is applied, such that it appears to support a separate argument and inappropriately promote a desired specific outcome.

Semmelweis Reflex – the tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts one’s held paradigm.

Sen-apathy – the errant decision or method wherein people around you are suffering and your first priority chosen is in promoting corporate interests. An automatic disqualification of trustworthiness.

Seth’s Razor – all things being equal, any explanation aside from the simplest one, constitutes a conspiracy theory. The principal technique of methodical cynicism, enforcing stacks of mandatory or pseudo-probable misinformation.

The Seven Tropes of Ethical Skepticism

I.    There is critically more we do not know, than we do know.

II.   We do not know, what we do not know. Only a sub-critical component of mankind effectively grasps this.

III.  Much of what we do know, is founded upon a pretense of possessing accurate and salient defining elements of the observed realm in which we reside.

IV.  Even what we do know is filtered through the lens of Machiavellian desires for supreme power, unless we take action to prevent such.

V.   The corrupt nature of human social intelligence is to construct elaborate contrivances of (self) deception; to constrain and expire itself inside the actions of methodical cynicism, provisional knowledge and ignorance, if left unchecked.

Methodical Cynicism – a method of cultivating ignorance through corruption of the process which regulates our social and scientific understanding. The exploitation of denial mandating a personal belief set while at the same time tendering an affectation of science.

Provisional Knowledge – the contrivance of a series of purposed provisional arguments, into a stack of probable explanations wherein we ignore the increasing unlikelihood of our conclusions and simply consider the stack of plurality to be plausible; and eventually by Neuhaus’s Law, rendering any other idea proscribed.

Ignorance – the action of blinding one’s self to an eschewed reality through a satiating and insulating culture and lexicon.

VI.  Only we, along with our love and care for each other, are real.

VII.  Knowledge vetted by this understanding can be held inside a standard of acceptance.

Shared Information Bias – known as the tendency for group members to spend more time and energy discussing information that all members are already familiar with (i.e., shared information), and less time and energy discussing information that only some members are aware of (i.e., unshared information).

Shaw’s Provision – one cannot rationally argue out what wasn’t rationally argued in — George Bernard Shaw

Shermer Error – mistaking the role of follow-on empirical observation in the confirmation of data which is simply being described. Regarding statistical analysis as needing empirical confirmation, when one is describing empirical observation distributions in the first place.

Shermerganda – the misrepresentation of science, argument or the scientific method by citing Michael Shermer as a source or similar very highly visible SSkteptic as an authority on science, despite their lack of expertise in the subject under consideration.

Shevel’s Inconsistency – a inconsistency wherein one simultaneously contends that science has shown a research subject to be invalid, yet at the same time chooses to designate any research into that subject as constituting pseudoscience. The two positions are not compatible when the pseudoscience in question has not been studied by science in the first place.

Shield Effect – when an arguer in a valid matter of discourse drops any need to reference diligent research, method, or data collection in support of their contended position because of a false status given to a higher visibility arguer, or member of their club, who has enjoined the discussion on their side.

Shotgun Barn Fallacy – when one attempts to state an argument and begins to gradually reframe it into a conformingly correct but completely different argument, as it becomes more and more apparent that the original argument was flawed. Firing a shotgun at the broadside of a barn and then drawing the bulls-eye around the pellet holes.

Shrouded Furtive Fallacy – extensive recitation of historical and peripheral information tender the semblance of deep research and professionalism; yet are only posed to serve as a distraction inside an article whose crucial argument centers solely on accusations of malfeasance or lying on the part of its target opponents.

Simplicity Sell – when making a pitch through the contention that something is easy. “Look, its simple right?”

Simpson’s Paradox – a trend appears in different groups of data can be manipulated to disappear or reverse (see Effect Inversion) when these groups are combined.

Simulans Legatus – when purposely positioning one’s self inside a group of the most extreme members of an opposing group of thought, one can simply present a statesmanlike posture and akratically troll the community, thereafter highlighting only the natural absurd, abusive and fanatical extreme responses of the opposing side.  All while maintaining a calm rational composure in contrast. A passive sales technique and method of misrepresentation of both your and their groups, capitalizing on combative habituation and the fact that there is always an extreme 8% in any group.

sinnlos – a Wittgenstein proposition framing class identifying propositions which are useless. A contention which does not follow from the evidence, is correct at face value but disinformative or is otherwise useless.

Skeptic – one who practices the method of suspended judgment, engages in dispassionate evidence gathering and objective unbiased reasoning in execution of the scientific method, shows willingness to consider opposing explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, and who pursues goals of clarity and value in support of our knowledge development.

Skeptic Appeal to Authority – using a persona who’s only expertise on a topic is that they have declared themselves to be a skeptic, or an expert of dubious credentials and/or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea. Appealing to skepticism as a basis for enforcing an idea.

Skeptical Inversion – when applying skepticism to useless subjects which bear little or no impact on humanity, while in contrast simultaneously and completely ignoring skepticism in matters of high risk of impact on humanity which are underpinned by conflict of interest, incomplete or sketchy science.

Skeptical Psychologist’s Fallacy – an opponent presupposes the objectivity of his own Skeptical position when analyzing a behavioral event on the part of others.

Skeptic’s Dilemma – shortcuts to denial are more oppressive even than are shortcuts to the affirmative, because the former is then regarded as truth. The skeptic who does not see this, is not a skeptic.

Skeptive Dissonance – the difficult to articulate or grasp, cognitive discomfort experienced upon one’s first perception of the disconnect between fake skepticism and real or effective science.

Skereto Curve/Rule – a condition wherein 99% of the skeptics are focused on and obsessing over 1% of the problem.

Skulptur Mechanism – aka as Evidence Sculpting – the pseudoscientific method of treating evidence as a work of sculpture. Methodical inverse negation techniques employed to dismiss data, block research, obfuscate science and constrain ideas such that what remains is the conclusion one sought in the first place. A common tactic of those who boast of all their thoughts being ‘evidence based’. The tendency to view a logical razor as a device which is employed to ‘slice off’ unwanted data (evidence sculpting tool), rather than as a cutting tool (pharmacist’s cutting and partitioning razor) which divides philosophically valid and relevant constructs from their converse.

Slack Exploitation (Ambiguity) – a form of equivocation or rhetoric wherein an arguer employs a term which at face value appears to constrain the discussion or position contended to a specific definition or domain. However, a purposely chosen word or domain has been employed which allows for several different forms/domains of interpretation of the contention on the part of the arguer. Often this allows the arguer to petition the listener to infer a more acceptable version of his contention, when in fact he is asserting what he knows to be a less acceptable form of it.

Slippery Slope – asserting that a relatively small first step in accepting data or ideas inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact/event that should not happen, thus the first step should not happen. While this fallacy is a popular one, it is, in its essence, an appeal to probability fallacy.

Snoping – when faced with a question which when investigated, might result accurately in an unwanted answer, preemptively ask an extreme or more ridiculous form of the question instead, or shift the query context slightly, so that the answer to the new question can be derived and published quickly, without research and be determined as ‘False’ or ‘Mostly False.’ Pursue the inverse technique when a ‘True’ or ‘Mostly True’ answer is desired in lieu of an actual falsity. Producing a False or True conclusion and publishing it within 24 hours of the question even being raised.

Social Conformance Bias – any influence which implies that if you do not agree, then you will be in some ways rejected to ostracized by your former peer group. Employment of peer/media/social pressure instead of rational case and argument to establish consensus.

Social Desirability Bias – the tendency to over-report socially desirable characteristics or behaviors in one self and under-report socially undesirable characteristics or behaviors.

Social Epistemology – when we conceive of epistemology as including knowledge and justified belief as they are positioned within a particular social and historical context, epistemology becomes social epistemology. Since many stakeholders view scientific facts as social constructions, they would deny that the goal of our intellectual and scientific activities is to find facts. Such constructivism, if weak, asserts the epistemological claim that scientific theories are laden with social, cultural, and historical presuppositions and biases; if strong, it asserts the metaphysical claim that truth and reality are themselves socially constructed. Moreover, in recognizing this, when social justice or the counter to a perceived privilege are warranted, short cuts to science in the form of hyper and hypo epistemologies are enacted through bypassing the normal frustrating process of peer review, and substituting instead political-social campaigns – waged to act in lieu of science. These campaigns of ‘settled science’ are prosecuted in an effort to target a disliked culture, non-violent belief set, ethnicity or class – for harm and removal of human rights.

Social Gadfly – an argument which is made through an appeal to practices, risk, impacts, standards or morals as underpinning the validity of the argument.

Social Peer Review – a process of acting on behalf of science, and pretense of conducting science, encouraged by celebrity skeptics – where in one presumes that by declaring themselves to be a skeptic, any critique they offer towards a disliked subject, pseudoscience or person is therefore now tantamount to application of scientific peer review. Usually backed by the Richeliean power of celebrities or social skepticism itself.

Social Priming – preparing a person to adopt a particular desired stance by encouraging or through sleight-of-hand getting them to identify with the mindset of a person who would take that stance, in advance of asking the intended question. For example, asking a person to identify what a skeptic is, before asking them if they consider mediumship as a domain worthy of research.

Social Skepticism – employment of fake a priori deduction methods combined with biased stacked provisional induction, both employed as a masquerade of science method in order to enforce a belief set as being scientific, when it is not. It is a sponsored activist movement which functions as an integral part of the socially engineered mechanisms seeking to dominate human thought, health, welfare and education. This domination serving as means to an end, towards subjection of all mankind’s value to mandated totalitarian institutions. Institutions which serve to benefit a social elite, however which stand threatened by innate elements of mankind’s being and background. An ideologue driven enforcement therefore of a social epistemology crafted to obfuscate mankind’s understanding of such innate elements. Its members practice a form of vigilante bullying, employed in lieu of science to dismiss disliked subjects, persons and evidence before they can ever see the light of day. This seeking to establish as irrefutable truth a core philosophy of material monism, dictating that only specific authorized life physical and energy domains exist. A comprehensive program of enforcement sought accordingly, through rather than the risk of ethical scientific methodology, instead a practice of preemptive methodical cynicism and provisional knowledge which underpins an embargo policy regarding, cultivates ignorance and institutionalizes intimidation surrounding any subject which could ostensibly serve as a pathway to falsify their power enabling illusory religion of Nihilism.

Solution (Theory) – a theoretical relationship or algorithm which is conjectured to comprise input variables, arrival distributions, controls and measures, parameters, constraints, assumptions, dependencies and interleaved feedback networks – all resulting in a given set of observable outcome measures. A completed solution is the condition where both the forward problem and the inverse problem agree in support of the proposed theoretical relationship.

Sophistry – an argument which is contended though a side’s claim to virtuous features characterizing their substantiation, approach or position.

Sponsor Practice Hyperbole – the fallacy of regarding the process of observation by a sponsor of an idea, to constitute a presentation of ‘science’ the sponsors’ part. This in an effort to subjugate such activity falsely into the realm of pseudoscience for the simple act of being of curious in nature around a disfavored subject. In fact research is simply that, a set of observations, and its false dismissal under the pretense of being deemed a ‘pseudoscience’ is a practice of deception and itself, pseudoscience.

Sponsorship Fallacy – the rejection of an entire methodological basis of a scientific argument and all its underpinning data and experimental history simply because one can point to a bad personality involved in the subject, hoaxes, old misconceptions about the subject or an errant conclusion which was drawn from the discipline, irrespective of the actual validity of its core scientific data and argument.

Soundness – a deductive argument is sound if it is valid and its premises and predicates are true. If either of those conditions does not hold, then the argument is unsound. Truth is determined by looking at whether the argument’s premises, predicates and conclusions are in accordance with facts and logic in the real world.

SSkeptic (Social Skeptic) – a member of an elite Cabal which practices and teaches Deskeption, who’s members also falsely identify themselves as ‘skeptics.’ SSkeptics are self or institutionally appointed activists, posing as rational and logical subject matter experts on a broad variety of topics in which they have performed shill research; with the objective of vitiating all targeted unwelcome thought sets. Far from actually practicing skepticism or science, SSkeptics seek to intimidate others through social enforcement practices promoting a specific cabalistic religion. A religion featuring key mandatory doctrines lacking scientific basis, imperiously passed to the public as unassailable truth.

SSkepticism Projection Fallacy – when one fails to apply skepticism, and default considers the way the Social Skepticism movement sees the world as the way the world really is.

Status Quo Bias – the tendency to like things to stay relatively the same, even in the face of necessity and new observations.

Stein’s Law – if something cannot go on forever, it will stop. If misinformation cannot go on forever, there is no need for action or a program to make it stop, much less to make it stop immediately; it will stop of its own accord.

Stereotyping – expecting a member of a group to possess certain characteristics reasonably or unreasonably assigned to that group, without having actual information about that individual.

Stickiness – The principle wherein proponents of a theory philosophy often cling to it despite the mounting evidence against it. The theory is abandoned only after its last proponents die. Such obstinacy allows theories to be given a proper run for their money, rather than being prematurely abandoned in the face of scant or specious contrary data that could be overcome with further research and accrued verity. Otherwise, we risk prematurely abandoning theories which could add value in one aspect or are indeed valid themselves.

Stooge Posing – attacks on piece of data or an easily disprovable topic of credulity used as an effort to bolster an opponent’s record of debunking success and club ranking. This reputation to then further allow for irrelevant and unmerited gravitas in addressing other arguments where data and observation do not support the goals of the opponent.

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

Straw Man Argument – crating of or logical calculus under, an argument which either does not exist, is irrelevant or is manipulated and twisted into a different form by a proponent.

Straw Man Conformance – the idea that since a person or group believes or considers subject A to be a potentiality, then an opponent insists that they therefore have endorsed extreme misrepresentations of subject A as well.

Straw Man Profiling – profiling of an individual based on an extreme or misrepresented version of their position. Any man can be made to appear irrational and vile, if his opponents only are allowed to speak on his behalf.

Scare Crow Fabrication – crafting of a position or stance on an issue which an opponent has never tendered, implied or stated. An argument fabricated from complete fiction and used to dissuade persons from viewing that opponent in a positive light.

“If I Only Had a Brain” Straw Man – an argument which would have constituted a straw man argument had the claimant understood it to begin with, however appears only to stem from the arguer’s inability to grasp the issue or logical calculus under discussion or contention.

Streisand Effect – the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet.

Strength – an inductive argument is strong if in the case that its premises are true, then it is highly probable that its conclusion is also true or testable. Otherwise, if it is improbable or unknown/unknowable that its conclusion is true, then it is said to be weak. Inductive arguments are not truth-preserving; it is never the case that a true conclusion must follow from true premises.

Structure – the logical formulation and relational structure of elements employed to array premises or predicates into a contention or extrapolation which is contended to be valid or sound.

Studium a Studia – when a study is falsely touted as new breaking science, when all the study has accomplished is to study a group of older studies and brought out the same conclusion as suggested by the previous studies it studied. This study is then touted in the future by proponents of the same idea, as a scientific empirical basis for argument.

Style over Substance Fallacy – the undermining of an opponent and their argument or data by citing that it looks too pushed, packaged or promoted (for money) in order to be deemed acceptable or believable.

Subadditivity Effect – the tendency to judge probability of a broader argument to be less than the probabilities of the components of that same argument.

Subject Ambiguity – the construction or delivery of a message in such words or fashion as to allow for several reasonable interpretations of person, place or thing to which the message applies.

Subjective Validation – occurs when two unrelated or even random events are perceived to be related because a belief, expectation, or hypothesis demands a relationship.

Sunk Cost Skepticism – the phenomenon where SSkeptics justify increased investment or fanaticism in a construct or belief, based on the cumulative prior investment, despite new evidence suggesting that the decision was probably wrong. Fanaticism is directly related to the level of nagging and cumulative inner doubt. Also known as the sunk cost fallacy.

Survivorship Bias – concentrating on the people or data that “survived” some process and inadvertently overlooking those that didn’t because of their lack of observability.

Syllogism – A syllogism is a structured form of deductive reasoning, through constraint of an argument by means of two sequitur, major and minor contentions, bounding an argument towards a single conclusion – by deductive elimination of all other potentialities. In the instance where either major or minor argument are not truly deductive or have not eliminated every variant of condition, the syllogism is not a sound basis for inference.

System Justification – the tendency to defend and bolster the status quo. Existing social, economic, and political arrangements tend to be preferred, and alternatives disparaged sometimes even at the expense of individual, intellectual and collective self-interest.

Taleb’s Law of Tolerance – a toleration of intolerance will always escalate to extremism and proscription as the standard.

Tangenda – in critical path theory inside the scientific method, a competing critical path of questions which are misleading, poorly or bias-crafted which serve to reduce or stagnate the probative nature of science, and steer the results of the scientific method into a specific conclusive domain. A critical path is a series of questions asked under the scientific method which are probative, illuminating, incremental, contextual, logical in sequence, parsimonious, risk averse, low in feature stacking, maximum in impact, and sequitur in terms of optimal knowledge development. While this is a tall order, it can be attained. Tangendas perform as a kind of pseudo-critical path which leads inexorably to a favored or desired conclusion or conformity – corrupted by the fashion in which scientific questions are crafted or the biased way in which they are sequenced.

Taxonomy Fallacy – the illegitimate assignment or characterization of a proponent of a set of ideas, into a disfavored, extreme or fanatical group; in an effort to discredit the set of ideas without undertaking or possessing the research, evidence or qualifications necessary to justify such assignment.

Technopologist – a science communication journalist who purposely (or even worse cannot grasp) confuses issues of risk inside the public trust as simply constituting a matter of science or technology.  In this manner any objections to violations of public trust or the introduction of excessive risk in order to obtain a quick profit or market domination, can be spun as a movement of an anti-science, anti-enlightenment or anti-technology nature.

Terms of Service Error – when citing a contention which is included as an element of a corporation’s Terms of Service as therefore constituting something which is correct, or as an example of a restriction which is moral or scientific based on the grounds that a corporation has enforced it on their contracted clients or customers. Abrogating the US Constitution or other aspect of goodwill and freedom, based on the fact that to not do so would ‘violate your agreement to our Terms of Service.’

Procreation Deafness – also known as ‘pussy logic’. The habit of some shallow or prejudiced women in that they will only regard as significant, input from men whom they regard as attractive enough to have sex with.

Thinking with the Little Head – also know as being a ‘dickhead’. The habit of some shallow or sociopath men in that every action they take is crafted inside the context of getting laid, or gaining the attention of women (or their perception of how that is attained).

Trait Ascription Bias – the tendency for people to view themselves as relatively variable in terms of personality, behavior, and mood while viewing others as much more predictable.

Transactional Occam’s Razor Fallacy (Appeal to Ignorance) – the false contention that a challenging construct, observation or paradigm must immediately be ‘explained.’ Sidestepping of the data aggregation, question development, intelligence and testing/replication steps of the scientific method and forcing a skip right to its artificially conclusive end (final peer review by ‘Occam’s Razor’).

Transactional Popper Demarcation Error – incorrectly citing a topic as being a pseudo science, when in fact its sponsors are seeking falsification based protocols to counter the antithetical premise to their case, or its sponsors are employing predictive studies being employed simply to establish plurality for sponsorship inside the scientific method.

Transcendental Substitution Bias – when one holds a compulsion to not to participate in traditional social institutions which promote brotherhood, tribal union or spiritual values; and instead substitute non-traditional institutions one finds as more acceptable. Passing such a proclivity off as justifying a delusional superiority.

Trashionality – the false claim by SSkeptics that they represent the position of science or critical thinking on a topic. A pretense made by a SSkeptic through application of intimidation, intimations as to personal brilliance and simple logical if-thens based on highly convoluted presumptive and furtive underpinnings, employed in lieu of actual scientific method, to preclude legitimate research or discourse around all Skeptic Cabal disfavored subjects.

Trivia Fallacy – the rejection of a entire set of data by the pointing out of one questionable or disliked element inside the data.

Truckle Fallacy – when a skeptic makes visible and biased overtures to politically correct movements, whether sincere or not, in order to placate any critics which might arise from that advocacy group, or to enlist the aid of those movements in attacking persons the fake skeptic regards as foes.

Truzzi Fallacy (of Argument) – the presumption that a position of skepticism or plausible conformance on a specific issue affords the skeptical apologist tacit exemption from having to provide authoritative outsider recitation or evidence to support a contended claim or counter-claim.

Tu Quoque (“you too”) – an argument stating that since the opponent has conducted a fallacy, logical broach or hypocrisy then the proponent should not be held to account for violations, or stands correct in their position due to the opponent having made errors, the same or similar errors.

Turtles all the Way Down Error – originally the regress problem in cosmology posed by the “unmoved mover” paradox, now more commonly used in jocular fashion to elicit that an explanatory idea has in epistemological terms, simply shifted its paradox to a different or less visible plane of accountability, and not resolved it.

Twitter’s Razor – all things being equal a compliant one-liner tends to be victory for the approved elite. The mistaken belief that a one-liner both expresses something the recipient has never heard before, and serves to increase the amount of knowledge or value inside the world at large.

Twittertation Error – when one demands inappropriate or impossible comprehensive recitation in a chat venue which is not designed for comprehensive recitation.

Two Sided Coin Objection – when a person is prepared with a dismissive quip no matter which version of objective data arises. If it is too precise, that is the problem, too broad, that is the problem, too blurry vs. too clear, too recent vs. too old, meta-analysis vs. cohort studies, etc. An indication of existential commitment to such an extent that really no objective data will ever suffice in the person’s state of mind.

Unit Bias – the tendency to want to finish a given unit of a task or an item to completion before beginning work on, or considering another avenue of research. The effort to avoid unwanted data by remaining fixated on legacy avenues of research, as a pretense.

Unity of Knowledge Error (Religion) – to conflate and promote consilience as consensus. Consilience is by its essence inductive and therefore cannot alone underpin a ‘unity of knowledge’ as Edward O. Wilson contends. Only diligent investigation of all compelling alternatives, deductive science, can serve to finalize and unify knowledge (under consensus). To promote consilience as a unity of knowledge or substitute for consensus, in absence of having diligently investigated competing alternative hypotheses, is also know in ethics as ‘religion.’

Universal Attribution Error – in this error a person is likely to make an internal attribution to an entire group instead of the individuals or disparate factions within the group.

unsinnig – a Wittgenstein proposition framing class identifying propositions which are nonsense. A question or claim of compromised coherency. Feynman ‘not even wrong.’

Untouchable Generalization – a condemning or dismissing generalization that comes with qualifications that eliminate so many cases which could falsify the derogatory claim, that what remains of it is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume. Yet the defamation stands as fiat knowledge and recitation nonetheless.

Unvestigation – the process of asking loaded questions and sculpting data so that your fake research will produce your desired conclusion.

Usurpation Error – when attempting to employ a recitation from an unrecognized, fringe or false authority as to policy or definition when the topic in question already has a recognized governing body which regulates policy, definition and standards.

Uti Dolo (trick question) – a question which is formed for the primary purpose of misleading a person into selecting (through their inference and/or questioner’s implication) the incorrect answer or answer not preferred inside a slack exploited play of ambiguity, interpretation, sequence, context or meaning. The strong version being where the wrong context is inferred by means of deceptive question delivery; the weak version being where the question is posed inside a slack domain where it can be interpreted legitimately in each of two different ways – each producing a differing answer.

Utility Blindness – when simplicity or parsimony are incorrectly applied as excuse to resist the development of a new scientific explanatory model, data or challenging observation set, when indeed the participant refuses to consider or examine the explanatory utility of any similar new model under consideration.

Vacuous Truth – is a statement that contends an absence or presence of a principle in an empty set domain, to imply the accuracy of a consequent argument. A contention that science holds no evidence in support of a topic which has not undergone scientific efforts at collecting evidence in the first place. Such a statement which is technically true, but is not correct in relationship as a logically qualified antecedent in support of the consequent.

Validity – an inductive argument is valid if its conclusion logically follows from its premises, and in parallel a deductive argument is valid if its predicates support its conclusions. Otherwise, an argument is said to be invalid. The descriptors valid and invalid apply only to arguments and not to propositions; which can be false, true or undetermined.

Value (Argument Outcome) – a consequentialist objective of ethical skepticism. The quality and relevancy of an argument such that it provides for improvement in clarity, understanding, agreement, focuses or constrains an experiment, reduces a hypothesis set, counters misinformation, or alleviates suffering or ignorance.

Relevancy –The quality of an argument such that it contains social value.

Reduction – a method of science wherein the process of induction or deduction is employed to falsify, or through consilience, render a hypothesis as false or more highly unlikely and therefore no longer salient or relevant.

Critical Path – the sequence of most highly effective argument tests which serve to falsify, eliminate, reduce or provide best consilience inside a set of plausible arguments.

Veneering – making a public show of doing good things to help distract from the bad things you are also doing.

Verdrängung Mechanism – aka The Lindy-Ignorance Vortex – the level of control and idea displacement achieved through skillful employment of the duality between pluralistic ignorance and the Lindy Effect. The longer a control-minded group can sustain an Omega Hypothesis perception by means of the tactics and power protocols of proactive pluralistic ignorance, the greater future acceptability and lifespan that idea will possess. As well, the harder it will to be dethrone as an accepted norm or perception as a ‘proved’ null hypothesis.

Verisimilitude – an argument establishing a screen of partially correct information employed to create an illusion of scientifically accurate conclusion. The acceptance of specific assumptions and principles, crafted in such a fashion as to lead to a therefore simple resulting explanatory conclusion.

Virtue Signalling – something done in accordance with socially correct pressure, or inside a visible boundary of political correctness, which is performed by a person wishing to show that they are on the good side in a political argument. Symbolic virtuous acts or positions adopted solely to build political power or exempt one from being accused of racism, bigotry, misogyny, greed or any of the canned talking attack points currently being fad utilized by the political left.

Von Restorff Effect – the bias inducing principle that an item that sticks out is more likely to be remembered than other items.

War Footing – a human conditioning wherein oligarch powers outline the purpose of life and the purpose of science as being critical in some theoretical final conflict. A conflict which demands supreme time and sacrifice on the part of its victims (the participants), sustained under the guise of WWII soldier or Cool Hand Luke style silent suffering. A social delusion of extremity, which benefits big governments and large socialist corporations, while at the same time stealing lives, in order to establish control and make money.

Weapon Word – words of mass defamation. A fashion term inside SSkeptic discourse, being forced onto the public, and targeting a goal of defaming targeted individuals, observations and in the deceptive obviation of access to science by unwelcome topics. Words plied to place SSkeptic compliant peer pressure on budding scientists or persons of influence in grade school, high school and beyond.

Whack-a-Mole Science – when an arguer presents objection after objection to an observation, data or construct, only to shift to another objection in an inventory of habitual objections as each successive objection is satisfied or made irrelevant. Typically employed when one has no desire to allow discourse on the subject at hand, and through ignoring each successive failure of objection they raise.

What’s Done is Done Bias – the artificial refusal to accept new data because an argument has ‘already been settled.’

Where’s my Check Fallacy – the pretense on the part of an individual who is a Social or Celebrity Skeptic, or use skepticism to promote themselves in their institution or career, that they do not receive compensation for their speeches and visible positions on public matters, nor take payment from those who regularly seek to promote specific business, social and political goals and doctrines via well established channels of Social Skepticism.

Whipping Horse – a martyr issue, study, chart, graphic or event which is cited as exemplary in condemning a targeted group or thought set – which is over-employed or used in a domain of ample equivocation, equivocal slack, straw man or other ambiguity that it simply becomes a symbol and ironically maintains no real salience to the argument at hand.

Wicker Man Argument – when an arguer has assembled an array of straw man or misrepresentation arguments so canned, pervasive or presumptuous that it appears that the arguer is arguing with a completely different person than the person with whom they are engaged in discussion. A penultimate, habitual or standing straw man misrepresentation of opposing thought and persons.

Wicker Man Defense – a position, as in the case of religion’s often being called ‘the ultimate strawman,’ where so many special exemptions are able to be pleaded or apologists habitually spin the idea that any critique offered towards their side constitutes strawman, ignorance or tu quoque errors – that the defended philosophy or position actually has no effective defining essence which can be pinned down in the first place.

Wiio’s Law – a failure in communication is never by accident. Communication usually fails, except by accident.

Wikipediad – lying through facts. When one attempts to portray themselves as an expert on a subject and squelch a specific idea by relating the entire repertoire of science in and around that idea through showering the discussion with history and ¡facts!, none of which actually pertain to the context or question at hand.

Wishful Accusing – accusing a person of making a decision with regard to data or observations according to what the opponent believes might be pleasing to imagine on their part, rather than according to evidence or reason. The minor implication embedded being that the opponent exhibits no such fault.

Wittgenstein Error (Contextual) – employment of words in such as fashion as to craft rhetoric, in the form of persuasive or semantic abuse, by means of shift in word or concept definition by emphasis, modifier, employment or context.

Wittgenstein Error (Descriptive) – the contention or assumption that science has no evidence for or ability to measure a proposition or contention, when in fact it is only a flawed crafting of language and definition, limitation of language itself or lack of a cogent question or (willful) ignorance on the part of the participants which has limited science and not in reality science’s domain of observability.

Describable: I cannot observe it because I refuse to describe it.

Corruptible: Science cannot observe it because I have crafted language and definition so as to preclude its description.

Wittgenstein Error (Epistemological) – the contention that a proposition must be supported by empirical data or else it is meaningless, nonsense or useless, or that a contention which is supported by empirical data is therefore sensible, when in fact the proposition can be framed into meaninglessness, nonsense or uselessness based upon its underlying state or lacking of definition, structure, logical calculus or usefulness in addressing a logical critical path.

bedeutungslos – meaningless. A proposition or question which resides upon a lack of definition, or which contains no meaning in and of its self.

unsinnig – nonsense. A proposition of compromised coherency. Feynman ‘not even wrong.’

sinnlos – useless. A contention which does not follow from the evidence, is correct at face value but disinformative or is otherwise useless.

Wittgenstein Error (Epistemological Bias) – the contention that a proposition must be supported by empirical data or else it is nonsense or senseless, or that a contention which is supported by empirical data is therefore sensible, when in fact the proposition is at least in part critically dependent upon a tenet of philosophy which is more than simply elemental in nature.

Wolfinger’s Misquote – you may have heard the phrase ‘the plural of anecdote is not data’. It turns out that this is a misquote. The original aphorism, by the political scientist Ray Wolfinger, was just the opposite: ‘The plural of anecdote is data’. The only thing worse than the surrendered value (as opposed to collected value, in science) of an anecdote is the surrendered bias of ignoring anecdotes altogether.  This is a method of pseudoscience.

Zeigarnik Effect – states that people remember uncompleted or interrupted tasks better than completed tasks. This imparts a bias to refute arguments or ideas which are unfinished.

Zero Risk Bias – making a decision or creating economic, insurance or financing arrangements so that a zero-risk scenario is developed – ignorant of the ramifications involved in cost or where risk is shifted or the de-optimization entailed in the decision made.

6 Comments

  1. […] to identify its limitations and weaknesses, and habitually dismissing all other methods (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.). Simply put, any excessive optimism or confidence in our current understanding of this issue may […]

    Pingback by Functional Neurological Disorders: When Could This Categorization Be Erroneous?  – pragmaticskepticism | November 20, 2017

  2. […] Complexifuscation – the introduction of similar signals, inputs or measures, alongside a control measure or an experimental measure, in an attempt to create a ‘cloud of confusion or distraction’ around the ability to effect observation, control or measure of a targeted set of data. Preemption of a phenomena with in-advance flurries of fake hoaxes, in order obscure the impact, or jade the attention span of a target audience, around a genuine feared phenomena […]

    Pingback by Misinformation Espoused by Proud Social Skeptics (Academics and Otherwise) – pragmaticskepticism | May 10, 2017

  3. […] Consensus – is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists composing a particular field of study. It is not a popularity poll among scientists in general or even necessarily inside the field of study in question. Consensus can only be claimed when multiple opposing explanatory alternatives have been researched in objective detail, and a reasonable body of those scientists who developed the field of opposition alternatives, have been convinced of the complimentary alternative’s superiority. Just because a null hypothesis exists, and only that hypothesis has been researched, does not provide a basis for a claim to consensus, no matter how many scientists, or those pretending to speak for science in the media, favor the null hypothesis. […]

    Pingback by Scientific Consensus or Political Consensus?  – pragmaticskepticism | May 7, 2017

  4. […] As Science As Law Fallacy: The implication or assumption that something is ‘innocent until proven guilty’ under the scientific method, when in fact this is an incorrect philosophy of hypothesis reduction. […]

    Pingback by “Detoxing” from Fake Skepticism: Should We Really Be Worried About Environmental Exposures?  – pragmaticskepticism | February 26, 2017

  5. […] H/t The Ethical Skeptic […]

    Pingback by GMO Safety, Organic Farming, & Veterinary Discussion Blog | January 22, 2017

  6. […] Glossary […]

    Pingback by An Open Letter to the Neurodiversity Movement  – pragmaticskepticism | October 26, 2016


Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: