Glossary N – P

tree-of-knowledge-obfuscation-smFor 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.


The Ethical Skeptic Site Glossary (and Lexicon)

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.

Narrative Ninny – a simpleton who believes that automatically adhering to what they have heard is the ‘official truth’, exhibits a superior level of erudition on their part, along with an exclusive monopoly in scientific reason. A fool who is conditioned to be automatically vulnerable to authoritative deception or an official narrative, who habitually allies with any apparent position of power, and is willing to incrementally prevaricate because the virtue of their cause more than makes up for their lie in support of it. A repetitive process passed from Narrative Ninny to Narrative Ninny, through which a stack of such (permissible) lies transforms into The Narrative. The opposite of a conspiracy theorist, save for their holding a reality shaped by zero research or logic in support their ‘position’.

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.

Nazi – someone who has refused or opposed my righteous insistence. A person who is not of color and is not silent or defends a person who is not of color. A person who’s wrong opinion or lack of silence can be justifiably countered by force or violence. A person who speaks things I do not like and can therefore be censored, blocked from media access or attacked violently as part of my expression of free speech and justice.

The Necessary Alternative – an alternative which has become necessary for study under Ockham’s Razor because it is one of a finite, constrained and very small set of alternative ideas intrinsically available to provide explanatory causality or criticality inside a domain of sufficient unknown. This alternative does not necessarily require inductive development, nor proof and can still serve as a placeholder construct, even under a condition of pseudo-theory. In order to mandate its introduction, all that is necessary is a reduction pathway in which mechanism can be developed as a core facet of a viable and testable hypothesis based upon its tenets.

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.

Nelsonian KnowledgeA precise and exhaustive knowledge, about that which one claims is not worth examining. No expertise is so profound in its depth as that expertise prerequisite in establishing what not to know. Such Nelsonian knowledge takes three forms:

1. a meticulous attentiveness to and absence of, that which one should ‘not know’,
2. an inferential method of avoiding such knowledge, and finally as well,
3. that misleading knowledge or activity which is used as a substitute in place of actual knowledge (organic untruth or disinformation).

The former (#1) is taken to actually be known on the part of a poseur. It is dishonest for a man deliberately to shut his eyes to principles/intelligence which he would prefer not to know. If he does so, he is taken to have actual knowledge of the facts to which he shut his eyes. Such knowledge has been described as ‘Nelsonian knowledge’, meaning knowledge which is attributed to a person as a consequence of his ‘willful blindness’ or (as American legal analysts describe it) ‘contrived ignorance’.

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.

Newman’s Doctrine – a resilience on the part of one’s victim in no way serves to exonerate the immorality of one’s crime. The resulting benefits in terms of wisdom, resilience and strength on the part of the victim, in no way serves to justify the decision to enact a harm upon that victim. What makes you stronger is not therefore forgiven in its attempt to kill you. (See Bastiat Fallacy).

Newton’s Flameout –  One who thinks something can be settled merely by an experiment probably does not understand the question in the first place.

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.

nihil admirari – a tenet of ethical skepticism. The understanding that literally everything is astonishing in nature, coupled with therefore a refusal to be anchoring bias conditioned in terms of one’s consideration of our natural realm. To not be fooled by the mundane and regular aspects of life into thinking that only the mundane and regular are therefore worthy of study pursuit. Latin for, ‘to be surprised by nothing’, is not simply a tenet of Stoicism. It is also a mandate in understanding that what resides yet undiscovered, will inevitably be refused/embargoed by fake skeptics for being ‘too incredible to consider’.

Nihilism (or Sol-Nihilism) – is a philosophical doctrine that suggests the negation of one or more of the reputedly meaningful or non-material aspects of life. Socially enforced metaphysical or pseudo scientific naturalism. The religious belief that only such physical life on Earth is relevant, and that the conscious, spiritual, values or intent sets all reduce solely to the material. 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

The three phases of philosophical genesis:

1. Apperception – the life experience, trials, perception and contemplation which serve to precipitate the principle idea itself.

2. Crafting – the crafting of its rigorous logical form and interrelation with prior art.

3. Posing – expressing it in such a way that people can understand and teach it, without compromise of its critical essence.

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.

Normative Convergence Paradox – the observation or reality inside of systems theory and modeling that, even in the case wherein all optimal constraints, arrivals, feedback and functions inside a system are modeled to perfect accuracy – a decision or optimal outcome may not necessarily be producible.

Not a Logical Truth – It is not that this type of statement is false. The basis of this type of assertion may even reside in scientific validity, or may be only categorically true – i.e. only true if given a specific set of circumstances. However the statement is not a logical truth – a truth of syllogism which is comprehensive, unqualified and unequivocal. Logical truth is the state of syllogism which a deceitful person is wishing for you to infer when they state a categorical truth, yet do not specify its conditions. It is a means of lying through stating something which is only conditionally accurate – hoping that their victim will accept the statement as one which addresses all circumstance.

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.

Nothing – the conditions of Nothing include, in increasing order of subjectivity:


  0/Zero/Aught – a number which place-holds for termination of a quantitative series

  Nil/Zilch/Love/Zot – a state of attainment represented by no quantity of a known entity

   aleph_0/Aleph Zero – the termination (cardinality) of the series set of natural numbers

Sets & Domains

  Nought/Naught – any set or entity which produces no associated quantity or quality

  None – a known set or entity which exhibits an absence of quantity or quality

  Blank – a set which is devoid of its associated entities

  Void – a defined domain which contains no set, entity nor quantity or quality

  Nada – a void of known entities or sets inside a known domain

  Non-Existent – the state of a known set or entity in which it is absent in all known domains

  Non-Entity – a putative member of a set which does not actually belong to that set

  ∅/Empty Set – a set of a known entity, quantity or quality which does not exist in a given domain

Nothing States

  Non-Extant – a set or entity, known or unknown, which is absent in all domains

  Oblivion – a condition in which the complete set of an entity is rendered non-extant

  Absent – a set, entity or state which is prohibited detection in a domain

  Emptiness – a domain in which all sets or entities are prohibited detection

  Nihil – a state of inability to exist, regardless of domain

  Nothingness – the domain of all sets or entities which are nihil


  NaN – not a number. A value that is undefinable or unrepresentable

  Idempotent – a transaction which contributes no change in (quantity or quality) state

  Nix/Exterminate – to render a set or entity to one of the various conditions of Nothing

  Annihilate – to render a set or entity to the sate of nihil

  Nihilism – a faith, that all Conditions of Nothing fully describe that which appears absent

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.

nulla infantis – a pseudo-argument, sometimes cleverly disguised or hidden inside pleonasm, which basically is the equivalent of saying ‘nuh-uhhh’…  Latin for child’s ‘no’. Usually followed by an appeal to have the opponent shut-up or be silenced in some manner.

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.

Objective and Subjective Domain Error – holding a domain argument (such as God or monism) as consensus, becomes an oppressive action called an Einfach Mechanism. Promoting a domain idea, such as God or Material Monism into the place of a testable or objective hypothesis – and thereafter, treating it as if it was an actual hypothesis. Most scientists do not take much philosophy, so they fall vulnerable to this mind trick. The least scientific thing one can do, is to believe the null hypothesis. This gets even worse, if the null hypothesis is not even a true hypothesis – and rather is a subjective domain of ideas.

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 falsely addressed as ‘claims’ needing immediate explanation, and through rejecting such a ‘claim’ (observation) based upon the idea that it introduces plurality (it is not simple), one effectively ensures that no observations will ever be recognized which serve 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 and observations are continuously discarded immediately, one at a time by means of being deemed ‘extraordinary claims’.

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.

Obtollence – (The Principle of Ethical Skepticism) – Latin ob – against, plus tollens – denial. Fake skeptics love to ply their wares in proving an absence (Hempel’s Paradox) – applying science to deny that things exist (prove the null, or prove absence); when such activity is unethical, impossible or even unnecessary. They seek to remove any question of modus indifferens (the neutrality of skepticism) at all costs. An ethical researcher avoids any form of Hempel’s Paradox – whereas a fake researcher dwells in it most of the time.

Occam’s Razorall things being equal, that which is easy for most to understand, and as well conforms with an a priori stack of easy-to-understands, along with what I believe most scientists think, tends to obviate the need for any scientific investigation. 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. All things being equal, that which is easy for most to understand, and as well conforms with an a priori stack of easy-to-understands, along with what I believe most scientists think, tends to obviate the need for any scientific investigation. 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 falsely addressed as ‘claims’ needing immediate explanation, and through rejecting such a ‘claim’ (observation) based upon the idea that it introduces plurality (it is not simple), one effectively ensures that no observations will ever be recognized which serve 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 and observations are continuously discarded immediately, one at a time by means of being deemed ‘extraordinary claims’.

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.

Facile – appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial. Easily earned, arrived at or won – derived without the requisite rigor or effort. Something easy to understand, which is compatible with a predicate or associated stack of also easy-to-understands.

Ockham’s Inversion – the condition when the ‘rational or simple explanation’ requires so many risky, stacked or outlandish assumptions in order to make it viable, that is has become even more outlandish than the complex explanation it was originally posed against and was supposed to surpass in likelihood. Similarly, a condition wherein the proposed ‘more likely or simple’ alternative is just as outlandish in reality as is the originally considered one.

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 promoted under such an insistent guise of virtue or importance, that protecting it has become imperative over even 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? 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?

Einfach Mechanism – an idea which is not yet mature under the tests of valid hypothesis, yet is installed as the null hypothesis or best explanation regardless. An explanation, theory or idea which sounds scientific, yet resolves a contention through bypassing the scientific method, then moreover is installed as truth thereafter solely by means of pluralistic ignorance around the idea itself. Pseudo-theory which is not fully 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 of false hypothesis 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. The Einfach mechanism is often accompanied by social rejection of competing and necessary alternative hypotheses, which are forbidden study. Moreover, the Einfach hypothesis must be regarded by the scientific community as ‘true’ until proved otherwise. An einfach mechanism may or may not be existentially true.

2.  Cheater’s Hypothesis – Does the hypothesis or argument couch a number of imprecise terms or predicate concepts? Is it mentioned often by journalists or other people wishing to appear impartial and comprehensive? Is the argument easily falsified through a few minutes of research, yet seems to be mentioned in every subject setting anyway?

Imposterlösung Mechanism – the cheater’s answer. A disproved, incoherent or ridiculous contention, or one which fails the tests to qualify as a real hypothesis, which is assumed as a potential hypothesis anyway simply because it sounds good or is packaged for public consumption. These alternatives pass muster with the general public, but are easily falsified after mere minutes of real research. 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 as a ‘hypothesis’. Despite this, most people hold them in mind simply because of their repetition. This fake hypothesis circumstance is common inside an argument which is unduly influenced by agency. They are often padded into skeptical analyses, to feign an attempt at appearing to be comprehensive, balanced, or ‘considering all the alternatives’.

Ad hoc/Pseudo-Theory – can’t be fully falsified nor studied, and can probably never be addressed or can be proposed in almost any circumstance of mystery. They fail in regard to the six tests of what constitutes a real hypothesis. Yet they persist anyway. These ideas will be thrown out for decades. They can always be thrown out. They will always be thrown out.

3. Omega Hypothesis (HΩ) – Is the idea so important or virtuous, 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 or virtue 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.

Constructive Ignorance (Lemming Weisheit or Lemming Doctrine) – a process related to the Lindy Effect and pluralistic ignorance, wherein discipline researchers are rewarded for being productive rather than right, for building ever upward instead of checking the foundations of their research, for promoting doctrine rather than challenging it. These incentives allow weak confirming studies to to be published and untested ideas to proliferate as truth. And once enough critical mass has been achieved, they create a collective perception of strength or consensus.

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’.

Poison Pill Hypothesis – the instance wherein sskeptics or agency work hard to promote lob & slam condemnation of particular ideas. A construct obsession target used to distract or attract attack-minded skeptics into a contrathetic impasse or argument. The reason this is done is not the confusion or clarity it provides, rather the disincentive which patrolling skeptics place on the shoulders of the genuine skilled researcher. These forbidden alternatives (often ‘paranormal’ or ‘pseudoscience’ or ‘conspiracy theory’ buckets) may be ridiculous or indeed ad hoc themselves – but the reason they are raised is to act as a warning to talented researchers that ‘you might be tagged as supporting one of these crazy ideas’ if you step out of line and do not visibly support the Omega Hypothesis. A great example is the skeptic community tagging of anyone who considers the idea that the Khufu pyramid at Giza might have not been built by King Khufu in 2450 bce, as therefore now supporting conspiracy theories or aliens as the builders – moreover, their being racist against Arabs who now are the genetic group which occupies modern Egypt.

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.

Omega Hypothesis Principle of Causatum – if you approach a subject with flawed assumptions, everything will appear to be a mystery from that point on. The principle citing that, as the number of enforced Omega Hypotheses increases inside a discipline or subject, so will the number of quandaries, mysteries, paradoxes and conundrums – and in arithmetic proportion. By the principle of the contrathetic impasse, such entities of conflict and unresolvability relate in direct proportion to bad underlying assumptions in force.

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

Omnifabulance – (Latin: omni- ‘the complete’, and fabula- ‘narrative’ or ‘the complete narrative or fable’) – the characteristic of an anti-God-like entity, which is the contrapositive of omniscience. That characteristic of a God, Religion, or Central Authority which frames its ability to deliver a coherent and pervasive lie, a complete set of interwoven lies, or highly-fabricated narrative or doctrine. That characteristic ability of an artificial intelligence or other central authority, to warehouse a full array of pseudo-knowledge about a variety of topics, which is narrative-framed, based upon no critical path of inquiry, and mostly absent of true logical calculus. Little of this information can be challenged by specific groups holding the correct knowledge set, because they lack the power to correct the central entity to begin with.

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.

One Upper – a person who, no matter what case or experience you may relate, has always seen/experienced worse or performed better.

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.

Open-Ended Fallacy – an argument, contention, or objective which stipulates attainment of something which is either undefined, difficult to measure, involves changing goals, is impossible to attain, or would require so much investment of resources that the involved costs are not worth the attainment benefits. A method of arguing/oppression which is used to enslave an opponent under an unresolvable standard or burden.

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.

Orphan Question – a question, purported to be the beginning of the scientific method, which is asked in the blind, without sufficient intelligence gathering or preparation research, and is as a result highly vulnerable to being manipulated or posed by means of agency. The likelihood of a scientifically valid answer being developed from this question process, is very low. However, an answer of some kind can almost always be developed – and is often spun by its agency as ‘science’. This form of question, while not always pseudoscience, is a part of a modified process of science called sciebam. It should only be asked when there truly is no base of intelligence or body of information regarding a subject. A condition which is rare.

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.

Outference – a critical (not rhetorical) argument which bases its inference or conclusions upon cultivated ignorance and the resulting lack of information, rather than the presence of sound information. More than simply an appeal to ignorance, this ‘lack’ of information is specifically engineered to produce specious conclusion in the first place. This type of argument gets stronger and stronger the less and less critical information one holds. This is a warning flag of agenda or political shenanigans at play.

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

Outsourced Critical Thinking – an oxymoron. Skepticism is after all ‘a null hypothesis holding that experts are fallible’. All this type of appeal to authority constitutes is: one doesn’t trust self to analyze the evidence that another ordinary person can easily survey – and defaults to someone with credentials to do their thinking for them. This corruption in the part of stakeholder thinking renders science nothing more than: outsourced critical thinking.

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

Overshooting the Question – to subconsciously make the mistake of responding to a simple question with a more complex answer than was asked or required – an indicator of agency and/or Nelsonian Knowledge. The act of subconsciously answering a question which was not actually asked, indicating a fear or a degree of defensiveness which betrays agency, bias, or culpability.

Oversimplification (Pseudo Reduction) – instead of reducing an argument so that its contributing elements can be tested, a pretend skeptic will oversimplify the argument as a pretense of reduction. A form of false reduction which only serves to reduce the possible outcomes, and not actually deconstruct an argument into its logical critical path. Rather than examining all contributing elements of cause to effect, soundness or observation, the oversimplifier pares off those influences, constraints, objectives, and factors which serve to get in the way of their agency or desired conclusion. Thereafter employing ‘Occam’s Razor’ simplicity as an apologetic. ‘The dose makes the poison’, or ‘non-ionizing radiation can’t cause cancer’ are examples of pseudo-reduction. The arguer appears to be stepping down to a level of cause and effect inference, however has excluded so many factors that – there can only be one a priori inference drawn from the remaining set of influence.

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.

Overton Window Manipulation – an Overton Window is the range of opinion positions which are acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time. It is also known as the acceptable window of discourse. The term is named after Joseph P. Overton, who stated that an idea’s political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within this range. False skeptics purposely pathologize subjects and individuals in order to artificially truncate or manipulate where this window falls in media, along with what is deemed acceptable for scientific study.

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.

Palter/Paltering – lying through facts. Paltering is the deceptive use of truthful statements to convey a misleading impression or inference. It is the devious art of lying by telling unqualified truths. It usually involves equivocation and/or prevarication as the basis of its management of constraint, context or ignoratio elenchi – however often can also come in the form of a semantic truth as opposed to a logical one.

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 fell 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

The Paradox of Virtue – a decision condition wherein uncertainty or unknowns force one risk (its mitigation most often associated with social virtue) to be served at the expense of all other risks, both known and unknown. The known risk-mitigation is promoted until a Tau Point inflection is reached and decision makers realize that another risk is now showing to have been greater, and reveals our actions to have been a mistake. Usually the cost of the under-served risk is many times higher than the virtue-served risk would have cost if left alone to begin with. There is no ‘good’, there is only evil and not-evil. Under a Paradox of Virtue, those who try to enforce virtuous good, fail for having boasted unreasonable claims of God-level knowledge or power on their part. They end up causing more harm, than good.

parafonía – the circumstance wherein a person, organization, or club has ceded fealty to, is financially or critically dependent upon, or has based their future viability upon a principle or organization which is showing to be increasingly unacceptable over time. The stark or sudden realization that one has hitched their wagon to the wrong team of horses. The dawning realization on a person’s part that one is in fact a member of a criminal enterprise or organization.

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. Avoidance of unnecessarily orphan questions, even if apparently incremental in the offing.

Parsimony Regarding Oppression – we must remember that the opposite of conspiracy theory, is an even worse mistake called ‘oppression’. Oppression makes the very same mistakes in inference as does the conspiracy theorist – except in the case of oppression, usually a lot of people are harmed as a result.​

Pathologizing – establishing a ‘halo of condemnation’ around a subject or person as a first step of deliberation inside a social context. A term framed by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his book Skin in the Game. It is what fake skeptics and other forms of poseur do to disliked subjects (‘pseudosciences’) and to persons (‘woo believer’) who research them. A true skeptic is a friend, not an enemy. They tend to be specific on help, encouraging on subject and mute on persons, personal habits, eccentricities and preferences. What fake skeptics and poseurs (Nassim Taleb’s Intellectual Yet Idiot- IYI) do is to pathologize persons who act differently than do they, and subjects they fear or dislike. They focus on person and personal traits and not upon prosecuting the subject at hand. Aside from standing in the gap when pathologizing emerges – fakers focus upon foibles.

pavor mensura – an effect of apophenia wherein, upon analyzing a system or looking at a set of analytics or an issue for the very fist time, observers will often mistakenly perceive that a disaster is in the making. The erroneous tendency to perceive that the first statistical measures of a disease, natural system, dynamic process or social trend – can be reliably extrapolated to predict calamity therein.

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 fama defectum – the act of making something more famous through criticizing it or pointing out its failure. Skeptics routinely fail to realize that broadcasting ostensible failure, is in essence providing their target with enormous free advertising. This is why club quality does not work and a principle reason why Goodhart’s Law (of Skepticism) applies well. Skeptics as groups… are not.

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.

per virtutem odi – a person who conceals and exercises their hate of those different than them through the adoption of a virtuous facade supportive of an issue which serves the facile good in one matter or to one group, however which bears an element of harm to the group whom they just also happen to hate. Usually this type of compromised character will adopt a series of meaningless ‘virtues’, inside which the only commonality that exists pertains to whom those causes will serve to harm, and not any particular heart for the causes themselves. Such animus patterns will cause people of this hate grouping to also cluster into clubs of supposed virtue (Antifa, skeptics, progressives, etc.) – most of their time spent not in support of the cause célèbre issue, rather pointing out and opposing those whom the cause will affect negatively (i.e. ‘skeptics’ only care about science when it disadvantages those whom they hate, the religious, etc.). See virtue signaling.

Perdocent – from Latin perdoceo – teach, educate, drill, train. The state of pretense, lack in diligence, or intellectual compromise wherein one bears an inability to learn and apply, outside the context of a course of instruction. One who follows a procedure well and can pass an exam, however lacks true erudition or ability to recall or apply their learning. The belief that legitimate learning can only occur in an academic structured environment. The opposite of an autodidact or antonym of autodidactic. Also a method of rhetorical argument, in that one may claim that they have not been taught something, so therefore it is invalid or does not exist.

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.

Periplocate – (Greek: περίπλοκος, períplokos : complicated, elaborate, involved) – to render a process or approach the resolution of a question in a more complicated fashion than is necessary. The use of complicating ignoratio elenchi, red herring, or overly obscure academic heuristics or methodologies to solve a problem, when such complexity was not required to begin with. This is often done in an effort to capture the topic or question under a fallacy of relative privation (implying that the matter can only be addressed by academics or scientists). The opposite of methodical deescalation.

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.

petitio contrarium – the ad hominem rhetorical accusation that a proponent of a practice or state, is necessarily implying that they are also therefore opposed to or condemning the antithesis or exception to that practice or state. The false contention that a person who lives healthy in order to avoid illness is also therefore blaming people who get sick for ‘not being healthy’. The idea that if a parent does not favor their child to grow up to be a trash collector, they are therefore prejudiced against trash collectors. The false social notion that if a person campaigns research to stem the tide of increasing autism, that they therefore necessarily hate or are discriminatory towards people with autism.

phantasiae vectis – the principle outlining that, when a human condition is monitored publicly through the use of one statistic/factor, that statistic/factor will trend more favorable over time, without any actual real underlying improvement in its relevant domain or condition. Such singular focus often to the detriment of all other related and appropriate factors. Unemployment not reflecting true numbers out of work, electricity rates or inflation measures before key democratic elections, efficiency focus instead of effectiveness, 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.

The Philosopher’s Tell – a heuristic for testing a philosopher along the following lines:

1. Most ancient and classical philosophers produced ideas which can be simply and organically derived through just living an effective life.
2. Recitation of a classic philosopher serves only as a means to back an idea one already derived organically on their own.
3. Classic philosophy therefore, is a course on appeal to authority derived simply in an a priori context (education), or a posteriori context (autodidact).

If a philosopher cannot show a life story which exemplifies the principle, then they really do not understand the principle and it is only academic knowledge.

The 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. Four unsound agencies which can hide and masquerade inside the art of philosophy – or why the qualifications of a philosopher are important:

1. To promote self as a celebrity/preeminent teacher
2. To prove the existence of your God/Pantheon
3. To assert Nihilism as truth
4. To establish the power of one group over another.

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.

Phylacterial (Theory) – the opposite of conspiracy theory. A de rigueur theory or memorized set of ideas/evidences which adhere to orthodox views regarding a subject. The set of memorized Schapiro Utterances which serve to identify one as residing in the membership of those who are approved to speak or lead inside a topic or social group. Refers to a phylactery, or a box containing slips inscribed with scriptural passages one must master in order to be considered orthodox/compliant.

Phylactorithm – an algorithm which scans media and discourse for compliant (phylacterial) or forbidden (conspiracy theory) phraseology – tasked with the purpose of bucket characterizing the writer into either the good guy or bad guy bucket. Refers to a phylactery, or a box containing slips inscribed with scriptural passages one must master in order to be considered orthodox/compliant.

Pinballing – a form of poor communication wherein the conversant conducts a stream of consciousness ramble, bouncing from one topical object and point to the next one, without ever wrapping up to a single point or assertion. The conversant may address 3 to 10 or more logical objects, ideas, logic rabbit trails, sub-plots or persons in a row, without ever coming back to their original context, nor forming an actual proposition related to it. Tends to be conducted in combination with pronoun hell (see Pronoun Hell).

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 – most often, 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.

ad populum – a condition wherein the majority of individuals believe without evidence, either that everyone else assents or that everyone else dissents upon a specific idea.

ad consentum – a self-reinforcing cycle wherein wherein the majority of members in a body believe without evidence, that a certain consensus exists, and they therefore support that idea as consensus as well.

ad immunitatem – a condition wherein the majority of individuals are subject to a risk, however most individuals regard themselves to reside in the not-at-risk group – often because risk is not measured.

ad salutem – a condition wherein a plurality or majority of individuals have suffered an injury, however most individuals regard themselves to reside in the non-injured group – often because they cannot detect such injury.

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 technique of a polling group to release preliminary polling results during the influencing stage of iterative polling (for example, election sentiment). Results which do not fully reflect all the data they have gathered yet, rather target implanting a specific perception or message in the mind of the target polling population. Thereafter, to subsequently show results which include all collected data during the critical actual measurement phase, or in the anticipated completion stages (fictus scientia – see at end of this article).

XIII.  Gaussian Parametrization – the error made by statistical analytical processors of polling data, in which they assume that humans reliably follow a Gaussian distribution. Therefore smaller sample sizes can be used reliably to parametrize the whole.

XIV.  Early Poll Bias/Tip-in – polls early in a process, election cycle or addressing a question for the first time, tend to reflect the bias of the poll sponsors or developers to a more hyperbolic degree. Early election and primary returns will always favor the Left and then hone gradually in to a more accurate representation as time progresses and other competitive polls force them to come clean. Their final poll is always justifiable, and the earlier polls are simply portrayed as resulting from changes in participant sentiment (which is usually baloney).

Polysemy/Polyseme – the capacity for a word or phrase (polyseme) to have multiple meanings or senses, even within a semantic field. A dog can be only a male dog or all dogs depending upon the meaning intended. Such ambiguation can be accidental or purposeful. Similar in nature to equivocation.

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.

Portmanteau – originally a large trunk made of stiff leather, which opened into two differing but equal sized parts – which has transmuted into meaning a word blending the sounds and combining the meanings of two others; for example fauxtography (from ‘faux’ and ‘photography’) or brunch (from ‘breakfast’ and ‘lunch’).

Post Stockholm Syndrome – a condition wherein a hostage, more than simply developing an affinity for captor, begins to develop amnesia about their state being hostage in the first place. Under such a condition, maintenance of this amnesia becomes the preeminent priority. It might even be entitled a the ‘Prime Directive’.

praedicate evidentia – any of several forms of exaggeration or avoidance in qualifying a lack of evidence, logical calculus or soundness inside an argument. A trick of preemptive false-inference, which is usually issued in the form of a circular reasoning along the lines of ‘it should not be studied, because study will prove that it is false, therefore it should not be studied’ or ‘if it were true, it would have been studied’.

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.

Precautionary Principle

1. In order to place a stakeholder at risk, one bears the burden to prove the safety of their product which introduces such risk.

2. In order to petition that one is justified in harming a stakeholder, one bears the burden to prove the case or necessity in terms of gain to be had.

3. In order to enforce a mandatory practice for all stakeholders which purports to deliver a value to all those stakeholders, one bears the burden to prove that the harm entailed is absent or of sufficiently low level, to warrant the action.

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.

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’.

The Ethical Skeptic’s Principle of Intelligence – data must be denatured into information. Information must be transmuted into intelligence. Intelligence is the only thing sufficient to underpin action.

To denature raw data into something informative, the litmus question must be asked: Can I derive consilience with my other data? A vacuum in underpinning consilience will be inevitably filled by mob rule.

To transmute informative data into intelligence, the litmus question must be asked: Does this information drive a critical path argument? An absence of critical path argument will be inevitably filled by virtue signaling.

Principle of Peerhood – (‘peer’ is a word derived from nobility ranking and matching) – I shall not tell an epidemiologist his business, unless he infers from his work that I should necessarily undertake a harm or ruin – at that point, I am now a peer. The stakeholder placed at risk is the peer review.

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.

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.

probis malum – it becomes moral to cheat when you’re convinced that your opponent is evil. The process of convincing one’s self or group that a targeted opponent is on the side of evil. This let’s loose the dogs of war. And all is fair in love and war. Even just. Even virtuous. A key hint of this factor in play: someone who regards all who oppose them, as equal to Hitler or another iconic symbol of evil in their mind.

The Problem of Apophenia – apophenia is the contraposition of consilience. Apophenia is the perception of or belief in connectedness among unrelated phenomena. The problem of a claim to apophenia resides in this: consilience is required to prove apophenia’s ‘unrelated’ input claim. Thereby potentially rendering it a circular appeal. Consilience derives from a state of active neutrality (skepticism). Apophenia therefore, when employed as a fallacy accusation, can only derive from an anchoring bias.

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.’

Pronoun Hell – the circumstance wherein a conversant over-employs pronouns inside a stream of object, topic or point-complex communication. Using shortcut pronouns such as he, she, it, thing, that, which, who, they, them, their, they’re, etc. to such an excessive degree that no actual coherent point is made, or no actual communication is accomplished.

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. Asking for proof before the process of science can ostensibly even start, knowing that plurality is what begins the scientific method not proof, and further exploiting the reality that science very seldom arrives at a destination called ‘proof’ anyway. Proof gaming presents itself in seven speciations:

Catch 22 (non rectum agitur fallacy) – the pseudoscience of forcing the proponent of a construct or observation, to immediately and definitively skip to the end of the scientific method and single-handedly prove their contention, circumventing all other steps of the scientific method and any aid of science therein; this monumental achievement prerequisite before the contention would ostensibly be allowed to be considered by science in the first place. Backwards scientific method and skipping of the plurality and critical work content steps of science. A trick of fake skeptic pseudoscience, which they play on non-science stakeholders and observers they wish to squelch.

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 -the skilled exploitation of acerbic or surreptitious misinformation, anonymous malinformation, along with smoothed (both simple and authoritative) disinformation, passed selectively from fiat authority to those targeted and under its influence – which is used to harm opposition voices, and to make allied voices appear more credible. Propaganda exploits the human proclivity towards fear-uncertainty-doubt (FUD), identifying the bad guy in advance (judging intent), and finally the desire for easy and simple answers.

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.

Proteus Phenomenon – the phenomenon of rapidly alternating or antithetical extreme research claims and extremely opposite refutations early in the risk horizon involved in a hot topic of science. Before peer pressure to accede to one answer has been established. Research during a period of scientific maturation where dissent is not only acceptable – but is advantageous for establishing career notoriety. This is the opposite of jackboot ignorance, a period in which opposite refutation is forbidden, regardless of the risk horizon involved in the topic.

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 Deduction – a type of appeal to authority in which a journalist or media outlet will cite the circumstances around a mystery or quandary of merit and contend that they do not know which answer is correct, but they do know which answer is not correct. A hack piece which appears to be an objective assessment, however is only constructed so as to target and discredit one specific idea, usually buried as lede inside an otherwise puff-piece article pretending to develop depth on the topic’s other aspects. This affords the journalist tacit permission to conduct deduction without any evidence whatsoever (since at a superficial level they are not ‘tendering a conclusion’).

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-Hypothesis – A pseudo-hypothesis explains everything, anything and nothing, all at the same time. A pseudo-hypothesis fails in its duty to reduce, address or inform. A pseudo-hypothesis states a conclusion and hides its critical path risk (magical assumption) inside its set of prior art and predicate structure. A hypotheses on the other hand reduces its sets of prior art, evidence and conjecture and makes them manifest. It then addresses critical path issues and tests its risk (magical assumption) as part of its very conjecture accountability. A hypothesis reduces, exposes and puts its magical assertion on trial. A pseudo-hypothesis hides is magical assumptions woven into its epistemology and places nothing at risk thereafter. A hypothesis is not a pseudo-hypothesis as long as it is ferreting out its magical assumptions and placing them into the crucible of accountability. Once this process stops, the hypothesis has become an Omega Hypothesis. Understanding this difference is key to scientific literacy. Grant me one hidden miracle and I can explain everything.

Pseudo-Inference – a form of very weak reverse modus absens linear induction in which a person uses an absence of Y, to infer an absence of X, based upon the post hoc ergo propter hoc solus fallacy of ‘only Y must result from X’. Any form of the rhetorical argument wherein one contends that ‘if your supposition is true, then we would have seen this, and we did not see this, therefore your supposition is false.’

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-Hypothesis – a pseudo-hypothesis fails in its duty to reduce, address or inform. A pseudo-hypothesis states a conclusion and hides its critical path risk (magical assumption) inside its set of prior art and predicate structure. A hypotheses on the other hand reduces its sets of prior art, evidence and conjecture and makes them manifest. It then addresses critical path issues and tests its risk (magical assumption) as part of its very conjecture accountability. A hypothesis reduces, exposes and puts its magical assertion on trial. A pseudo-hypothesis hides is magical assumptions woven into its epistemology and places nothing at risk thereafter. A hypothesis is not a pseudo-hypothesis as long as it is ferreting out its magical assumptions and placing them into the crucible of accountability. Once this process stops, the hypothesis has become an Omega Hypothesis. Understanding this difference is key to scientific literacy. Grant me one hidden miracle and I can explain everything.

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) – a construct, belief or overarching idea which explains anything, everything and nothing – all at the same time. It 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 fell 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.

Pyrrhic Victory – an expression attributed to King Pyrrhus of ancient Greece, wherein a battle win against the Romans cost him so dearly that he is purported to have said, “If we win another such battle against the Romans, we will completely lose.” A form of ‘Winning the battle but losing the war’, a Pyrrhic victory occurs when the toll taken in winning a battle is so severe that the benefit of the win does not offset its entailed losses.