The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

Glossary G – P


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)

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

Gaslighting – a form of manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, hoping to make them question their own memory, perception, and/or sanity. Using persistent denial, disinformation, misdirection, contradiction, manipulated statistics and organic untruths, in an attempt to destabilize the target and delegitimize the target’s beliefs, understand or confidence in self.

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.

Genetic Fallacy – an informal fallacy of irrelevance regarding the origins of an argument or the person making the argument, wherein a conclusion is suggested or rejected based solely on someone’s or something’s history, origin, or source and/or rather than its current meaning or context.

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 – when a specific measure becomes the sole or primary target, it ceases to be a good measure.

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

Google Blame Ranking Effect – if advice about what you are personally doing wrong, inhabits 90% of the first three pages of ranked responses on Google, it is most certainly wrong.

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.

Haspel’s Paradox – a suppressed idea mutates to ever more virulent forms, these are then invoked to justify its continued suppression.

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.

Hitchens’ Apology (Desire to Offend Bias) – when one uses Christopher Hitchens’ apologetics to excuse/cover for a bias. Using the familiar Hitchens quote, valid in its own right, to excuse a condition wherein, the desire to offend is so high or is a first priority such that, it imbues or reveals a bias all of its own. A way of masquerading agency under the apologetic “If someone tells me that I’ve hurt their feelings, I say, ‘I’m still waiting to hear what your point is.’ In this country I’ve been told, ‘That’s offensive,’ as if those two words constitute an argument or a comment. Not to me they don’t.”

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.

Hate Hoax – A skit/joke or special kind of strawman hoax which celebrates oppression or mocks people based upon their opposition to oppression, based upon race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality or political beliefs – is indistinguishable from and should be treated as, the real thing.

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.

Hyperbolic False Equivalence – using an analogy of an extreme or non-sequitur nature to exaggerate in eliciting a principle regarding an issue under discussion. For example stating that gardening is to farming as woodworking is to home contracting. It exaggerates the point being made, usually in serving an underlying agenda.

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.

ideam tutela – agency. A questionable idea or religious belief which is surreptitiously promoted through an inverse negation. A position which is concealed by an arguer because of their inability to defend it, yet is protected at all costs without its mention – often through attacking without sound basis, every other form of opposing idea.

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.

ignis pugna – for ‘fight fire with fire’, a Latin idiom. A condition of false appeal to hypocrisy wherein one defending the innocent from the powerful, or only defending from an unjust attack, appropriately uses the same tactics as the attacker, or tactics they themself might have previously decried. For instance, one condemns doxing in general, but is forced to use it as a means of stopping a person conducting malicious aggression, harm or bullying. A condition wherein one uses a gun to stop a crime, and then is invalidly criticized for having used a gun, as if that constituted a crime of violence itself. This is a deceptive appeal to hypocrisy, which is easier to conceal when the circumstances are not as stark as in the case of justifiably using a gun. This is the converse of tu quoque – wherein a person falsely believes that just because an opponent has committed any or a specific broach in tactic, therefore now the arguer is also allowed. The fallacy, ignis punga is the special condition where either tu quoque or an appeal to hypocrisy is falsely applied.

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.

Straw Man Egoism – a self-focused belief that every argument raised by an opponent is a straw man issued at them personally. Especially when the argument is common inside the domain being discussed.

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 scientific comment on the matter. A personal freedom from antiquated, imperious and incoherent claims of traditional religion and atheism.

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 inchoate activating entity.

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.

Intelligence – data is denatured into information, and information is transmuted into intelligence. Inside decision theory and clandestine operation practices, intelligence is the first level of illuminating construct upon which one can make a decision. Intelligence skills combine a healthy skepticism towards human agency, along with an ability to adeptly handle asymmetry, recognize probative data, assemble patterns, increase the reliability of incremental conjecture and pursue a sequitur, salient and risk mitigating pathway of syllogism. Authority, Data and Fact are merely information at best. They do not constitute intelligence. One cannot adopt a belief, nor take an action bearing risk, unless based upon intelligence. And in absence of intelligence, the ethical skeptic maintains a disposition of neutrality.

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.

Interrogative Biasing – ask the wrong question and you are assured to arrive at the right answer. A method of faking science by asking an incomplete, statistical absence, non-probative, ill sequenced or straw man question, fashioned so as to achieve a result which implies a specific desired answer; yet is in no way representative of plenary or ethical science on the matter under consideration.

intra ludio – or the telltale of the inside actor. If someone is truly an expert proponent of a subject, then that proponent should also be able to offer his subject’s most profound expert critique as well – and be forthcoming about unanswered daunting questions inside that subject. The key is to watch for this honesty in conviction – the faker does neither of these things – an only defends his precious argument. As an evolutionist, I do not believe that you support evolution, nor really even know it – if you cannot offer up a cogent and accurate summation of its current challenges and shortfalls. You may offer them up as ‘gaps’, but to totally ignore them tells the ethical skeptic that their opponent is both ignorant and dishonest as well.

Intuitionism – is the process of reasoning from a set of internally developed ideas – in part or alone without necessary reference to objective and a priori reality, sources, epistemology or belief. Such ideas may originate in part from unconscious or conscious extrapolations from prior training, including scientific, mathematical, social, experiential and religious. There are three general forms of Intuitionism.

Ethical Intuitionism – a set of ideas that our intuitive awareness of value, or intuitive knowledge of clear evaluative facts and our ability to sense and measure plausibility, risk and probability, form the foundation of our ethical knowledge and knowledge development processes. This form of inference derives its basis from a solid background in inductive and deductive training and experience; however does not demand that every inference be based upon solely sources, epistemology or belief. Since philosophy derives (by necessity) many times from relatively intuition based inferences – it is rightfully thought of as a type of Ethical Intuitionism. It’s quality is proved out through the success of the science which employs methods adhering to its tenets.

Mathematical/Physical Intuitionism – an approach wherein mathematics (or alternately physics as well) is considered to be purely the result of the constructive mental activity of humans rather than inferred through our discovery of fundamental principles claimed to exist in a referenceless, objective and a priori reality. That is, logic and mathematics are not considered analytic activities wherein deep properties of objective reality are revealed; rather, are instead considered the application of internally consistent methods used to realize more complex mental constructs, regardless of their possible independent existence in an objective reality.

Metaphysical Selection/Faith – the philosophical theory that basic truths can be derived or are always known intuitively. The opposite of empirical and epistemological inference methods, often involving some degree of teleology. The philosophical basis of the idea that existence, cause, effect, purpose, being, origination of existence, theology or lack thereof, can all be derived through the foundationalism about moral knowledge: the view that some moral truths or views about god, existence, cause and purpose can be known non-inferentially (i.e., known without one needing to infer them from other sources, epistemology or beliefs). It revolves around three principles: 1. Objective moral truths do exist (and for some, objective moral and causal Agents do exist), 2. Fundamental moral truths (and moral and causal agents) have no precedent, nor can they be broken down into simpler or predicate components (this is parallel to the position of Philosophy – however extends to conclusions, rather than simply practices and disciplines), and 3. The belief that human beings are granted, can freely derive or have a past innate memory of such moral truths (and moral or causal agents).

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.

Jamais l’a Fait – Never did it. Someone pretending to the role of designer – Assuming they know the salient factors necessary inside a design, when in fact they have never extensively used the device they are pretending to design, nor are they an aficionado in its subject matter. A skeptic who teaches skepticism, but has never made a scientific discovery, nor produced an original thought for themself. User manuals done by third parties, tax laws crafted by people who disfavor people unlike themselves more heavily, hotel rooms designed by people who do not travel much, cars designed by people who have never used bluetooth or a mobile device, etc.

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.

Knowledge – an incrementally developed item of information (intelligence) awareness, which bears utility in thriving (which includes the set of survival).

Knowledge Equivocation – assigning beliefs, opinions, facts, information, ideas, claims, unvetted philosophy, orphan claims and pseudo-theory, status as knowledge or part of the process of knowledge development, when indeed this is false. The problem with declaring a philosophy that ‘all knowledge is uncertain’ – is that it allows a foothold for questionable or risk-bearing knowledge to be assigned status as ‘knowledge’ and further be crafted into a stack of risk which is not evaluated for such risk.

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.

Lead-in Lie – deception by means of preamble. When someone introduces a point by first excusing themselves from a group related to that point, they are indeed a member of the group they have tried to distance themselves from. “I’m not a believer in psychic phenomena, but… when I was…”

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.

Lotto Ticket Shuffle Scam – a scam wherein two persons pool money and buy 10 lottery tickets, however only one of them goes to the store and buys the lotto tickets; subsequently reporting back that all his tickets won and all his partner’s tickets lost. Or a business wherein one partner owns all the profitable aspects of the business, and his partners own all the non-profitable ones. The same is done with ‘reliable’ data being produced only by a authorized club – all my data is fact and all your data is anecdote.

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.

Methodical Deescalation – employing abductive inference in lieu of inductive inference when inductive inference could have, and under the scientific method should have, been employed. In similar fashion employing inductive inference in lieu of deductive inference when deductive inference could have, and under the scientific method should have, been employed. One of the hallmarks of skepticism is grasping the distinction between a ‘consilience of inductions’ and a ‘convergence of deductions’. All things being equal, a convergence of deductions is superior to a consilience of inductions. When science employs a consilience of inductions, when a convergence of deductions was available, yet was not pursued – then we have an ethical dilemma called methodical deescalation.

Methodical Doubt – doubt employed as a skulptur mechanism, to slice away disliked observations until one is left with the data set they favored before coming to an argument. The first is the questionable method of denying that something exists or is true simply because it defies a certain a priori 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

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.

modus tollens – the necessity of an argument following the form of claim such that its soundness and formal structure can be followed by others. A discipline featuring the formal predicate of ‘If P then Q’ in its underpinning 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. In the case of Modus Tollens however, the form of the argument takes the contra-positive in each case: Given ‘if P then Q’, then the contra-positive is also valid, ‘if not P then not Q’.

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.

Moral Recourse – an appeal to morality wherein a faking arguer who actually bears no interest in the science behind an issue, is outflanked, and actual science is no longer on his side. He will shift to moral arguments and attempt to make his opponents appear to be bad or immoral for their stance. This is the shift we see underway now in vaccine science for instance, now that early immune activation and injected aluminum are linked in numerous studies to autism, the argument is no longer scientific, rather a moral appeal.

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.

Negative Reactance –  an Aristotelian posturing wherein one, upon confrontation with objectionable principles, thereafter embraces the opposite of such objectionable principles, avoiding any possible middle path or other rational option – as a defensive reaction to such objectionable principles. 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.

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.

The Nine Features of Great Philosophy

1. Distinct – Serves in an incremental or open critical-path role

2. Cogent – Is focused, concise and meaningful

3. Novel – Has not been fairly addressed before

4. Non-obvious – Not really obvious to the average philosopher

5. Adeptly Addresses Prior Art – Leverages or fairly modifies prior philosophical work

6. Not Sophistry – Not developed to feature nor protect an agenda

7. Clarifying – decreases the entropy of knowledge and understanding

8. Useful – bears incremental utility inside a specific context domain

9. Teachable – Can be effectively communicated and sustained

Ninety Seven Percent (97%) Pretense – when an imperious claim to science cannot be backed up by evidence and research, a posing pseudo-skeptic will resort to quoting the “97% of scientists concur with the idea that ___________” line. The figure needs to be above 95% in order to imply appeal to authority, yet cannot be 99 or 98% as this pushes the bounds of a 3% error rate (commonly employed in statistics) in terms of credibility. 95% itself sounds like it is made up, and 96% just does not carry the imperious ring which does 97%. A sure fire way to tell if a fake skeptic is fabricating a statistic or quoting one they do not in reality understand.

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 invalid null hypothesis or best explanation. An explanation, theory or idea which resolves a contention through bypassing the scientific method, then moreover is installed as truth solely by means of the apparent strength of the idea itself. Pseudo-theory which is not tested at its inception, nor is ever held to account thereafter. 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) stemming-from-simplicity idea that the issue is closed as finished science or philosophy from its proposition and acceptance onward. A pseudo-theory which is granted status as the default null hypothesis or as posing the ‘best explanation’, without having to pass the rigors with which its competing alternatives are burdened. Such alternatives may indeed also be pseudo-theory, but formal fallacy arises in that the accepted hypothesis is pseudo-theory. 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.

omnis doctrina – when an authority insists that, in order to be a member or adherent to a club, citizenship, religion or group, one must believe all the tenets of the charter or mantra of that group without question or dissent. Ideas such as ‘you can’t just throw out parts of the Bible which you don’t like, and keep the rest,’ or ‘you cannot pick and choose the science you like and do not like’ or ‘you cannot be an American and toss out the 4th Amendment’. An appeal to authority, which can slip by and sound more reasonable because it is offered in a rhetorical reverse fashion of posing.

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 (verum mendacium) – a constructive form of argument which exploits concealed ambiguity or altered premise as the core of its foundational structure. A statement which is true at face value, but was not true or was of unknown verity under the time frame or original basis, soundness, domain or context under discussion.

Orthogonality/Orthogonal Argument – a principle regarding an assertion of fact or syllogism, wherein it is not necessarily mutually exclusive to other assertion or arguments being made inside its topic. An object might be hot or cold, but it can also be red or green at the same time. Beware of those who spin orthogonal arguments as being part of a mutually exclusive set of linear arguments, or even as violating a bifurcation they wish to enforce. This stands as an indication that they really do not understand the argument at hand.

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.

Panaganda – declaring the one or scarce exception to dominant propaganda, because it dissents or is neutral, to therefore be propaganda itself. “The true objective of propaganda is neither to convince nor even persuade. But to produce a uniform pattern of public utterances in which the first trace of unorthodox thought reveals itself as a jarring dissonance.” ~Leonard Schapiro

Panduction – an invalid form of inference which is spun in the form of pseudo-deductive study. Inference which seeks to falsify in one felled swoop ‘everything but what my club believes’ as constituting one group of bad people, who all believe the same wrong and correlated things – this is the warning flag of panductive pseudo-theory. No follow up series studies nor replication methodology can be derived from this type of ‘study’, which in essence serves to make it pseudo-science.  This is a common ‘study’ format which is conducted by social skeptics masquerading as scientists, to pan people and subjects they dislike. There are three general types of Panduction. In its essence, panduction is any form of inference used to pan an entire array of theories, constructs, ideas and beliefs (save for one favored and often hidden one), by means of the following technique groupings:

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

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.

Pedophrasty – (coined by NN Taleb) sensationalism involving children or their abuse, sickness or risk of death, employed to manipulate an argument by means of an ad virtutem fallacy – accusation that an opponent is ‘endangering the children/starving children and therefore lacks virtue or is an asshole, by means of their argument position. Argument involving children to prop up a rationalization and make the opponent look like an asshole, as people are defenseless and suspend all skepticism in front of suffering children: nobody has the heart to question the authenticity or source of the reporting. Often done with the aid of pictures.

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.

phantasiae vectis – the principle outlining that, when a human condition is monitored publicly through the use of one statistic, that statistic will trend more favorable over time, without any real underlying improvement in its related human condition. Unemployment not reflecting true numbers out of work, electricity rates or inflation measures before key democratic elections, crime being summed up by burglaries or gun deaths only, etc.

Pharmaceutical Research Fraud – nine methods of attaining success results from pharmaceutical studies, which are borderline or fraudulent in nature. The first eight of these are developed by Richard Smith, editor of the British Medical Journal. The ninth is a converse way of applying these fraud accusations to filter out appeals for study under Ockham’s Razor, in situations where studies run counter to pharmaceutical/research revenue goals.

1. Conduct a trail of your drug against a treatment known to be inferior.

2. Trial your drug against too low of a dose of a competitor drug.

3. Conduct a trial of your drug against too high of a dose of a competitor drug (making your drug seem less toxic).

4. Conduct trials which are too small to show differences from competitor drugs.

5. Use multiple endpoints in the trial and select for publication those that give favorable results.

6. Do multicenter trials and select for publication results from centers that are favorable.

7. Conduct subgroup analyses and select for publication those that are favorable.

8. Present results that are most likely to impress – for example, reductions in relative risk rather than absolute risk.

9. Conduct high inclusion bias statistical studies or no studies at all, and employ items 1 – 8 above to discredit any studies which indicate dissenting results.

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

Philosopher’s Test – it is said that knowledge may be obtained through study, yet wisdom is attained through arduous and complete life. Beware of those who suggest they obtained wisdom from study.

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.

Plural Arguing – propose to me one justification for your argument and I might believe it. Propose to me two justifications for your argument and I won’t believe that even you believe it. An indicator that an arguer is simply grasping at every bad sounding report or seeming counterargument related to an issue, in a desperate attempt to condemn the subject. Seemingly unaware of the logical gravitas, salience or sequitur nature of any one single argument. One single argument, when crafted according to a critical logical calculus, is all that is required to refute a contention. The plurality deludes the arguer into thinking they have condemned the subject, and might even reveal an irrational bias attempting to be passed off as science. For instance, the case of supplements, anti-supplement activists will cite cases of impurity, and that supplements are often ineffective, and that people spend a lot of money on them. None of these arguments actually is an argument to eliminate supplements.

Driving Range – Tossing out a smattering of semi-related points to see if any of them stick or if the perception of talking point numbers produces an intimidation effect. (e.g. Gish Gallop, apologetics or casuistry)

Practice Putting – Sinking repeated unsound, unrelated and peripheral or trivial (non-critical path) assertions/epithets in order to bolster a perception of ominous conclusivity. (e.g. ad vertutem, ad hominem or eristic arguments)

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. Streetlight Effect – is a type of observational bias that occurs when people only search for something where it is easiest to look.

VII. Trial Heat – the overall pressure which is placed on respondent results based on the structure of or questions inside the poll itself (1 Pew Research)

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.

VIII.  Crazy-8 Factor – for any question you pose, there is always a naturally errant 8 percent quotient who do not understand, don’t care, or purposely screw with you, or really think that gravity pulls up and not down. All which has to be done, to effect a 2 – 4 percentage point skew in the data – is bias the questioning so that the half of the Crazy-8 which disfavors your desired result, are filtered out through more precise or recursive questions – which are not replicated in the converse for the other half of the Crazy-8 which favor your desired result. The analytics which detect this poll manipulation is called a ‘forced-choice slack analysis’ – which examines the Crazy-8 and/or neutral respondents to see if they skew to the a bias in any particular direction.

IX.  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? (3 Pew Research)

X.   Follow Through Effect – only 35 to 55% of people who are polled, on average, will actually turn out to vote. (6 2016 General Election Turnout)

XI.  Oversamplingdeclaring 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. (1, 4 Pew Research)

XII. 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.

Prager’s Axiom – those who won’t fight the great evils will fight lesser or make-believe evils.

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.

Price’s Law – a principle similar in framework to a Pareto Curve, constructed by Derek J. de Solla Price which states that half the literature on a subject comes from the square root of all contributors to that subject. Thus, if 100 skeptic articles are written by 25 authors, five authors will have contributed half of that body’s of material. A principle which cites that much of a body of understanding is in actuality only developed by a handful of people – as authority.

Price’s Law of Asymmetry – Asymmetry involving Prices Law which states that that the most extreme views contained inside the minority of publications inside a body of published material under Price’s Law represent the locus of conclusion or exclusions of 95% of that body of material.

Privilege – is the condition wherein a person perceives that someone else should be denied something in order for them to possess that same something, to which they feel they are entitled.

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.

Procrustitute – a data scientist or researcher who tailors the data or analytical method so that the results are supportive of a preconceived argument being promoted under a motive of agency.

procuratorem regula – the monopoly that the government doesn’t stand up to becomes the new law of the land. A principle which cites that a monopoly, unchallenged by its governing bodies, constitutes a default legislative action in its becoming the new defacto portion of the government of that land. It is therefore bound by any covenants and constrains of that constitutionally driven government under which its operations constitute a monopoly or even oligopoly. A monopoly media company for instance, is bound by the constitutional constraints on prohibiting freedom of speech, even if the constitution only mandates that to constrain only the government itself.

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-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.

Pseudo-Reduction (Debunking) – the non-critical path disassembly of a minor subset of logical objects as a pretense of examination of the whole. A process which pretends that a robust observation is already understood fully. Which consequently then ventures only far enough into the reducible material to a level sufficient to find ‘facts’ which appear to corroborate one of six a priori disposition buckets to any case of examination: Misidentification, Hoax/Being Hoaxed, Delusion, Lie, Accident, Anecdote. This process exclusively avoids any more depth than this level of attainment, and most often involves a final claim of panductive inference (falsification of an entire domain of ideas), along with a concealed preexisting bias.

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 (Mock Hypothesis) – is a premature and imperious proposed explanation for a set of post facto observations or phenomenon. Instead of bearing the traits of true scientific theory (hypothesis) – a pseudo-theory is quickly crafted and installed so as to exploit the advantages of pluralistic ignorance and the Lindy Effect. It explains everything without having to be approached by falsification, nor having to successfully predict anything. Usually installed as the null hypothesis before an argument is even framed around an issue, pseudo-theory is used primarily as a football enabling dismissal of competing alternatives from the point of its installation as the null hypothesis, onward. More specifically, pseudo-theory (mock hypothesis) bears the following profiling traits or essences:

1. Can be developed in full essence before any investigation even begins.

2. Never improves in its depth, description nor falsifiable or inductive strength despite ongoing research and increases in observational data.

3. Possesses no real method of falsification nor distinguishing predictive measure which is placed at risk, nor does it offer any other means of being held to account or measure..

4. Employs non-Wittgenstein equivocal/colloquial terminology or underlying premises (possibly pseudo-theory itself) where the risk of conjecture is not acknowledged.

5. Is employed primarily as a symbolic or fiat excuse to dismiss disliked or competing explanations.

6. Filters out by method during the hypothesis formulation stages, high probative value information, in favor of perceived high reliability or authorized information only (cherry sorting).

7. Can explain a multiplicity of observations or even every non-resolved question (Explanitude).

8. Is artificially installed as the null hypothesis from the very start.

9. Attains its strength through becoming a Verdrängung Mechanism.

10. Considers the absence of observation or a data collection/detection failure as suitable to stand in as ‘evidence’ (argument from ignorance).

11. Pseudo-theory can be identified in that, as less information is held or information is screened out (cherry sorted), pseudo-theory tends to appear to grow more plausible and more pervasively explanatory, and is able to be produced with less effort (armchair debunking for instance). Whereas valid theory and hypothesis tend to strengthen with research effort and an increase in information.

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

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.

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: