For a comprehensive categorical listing of both formal and informal logical fallacies, cognitive biases, statistical broaches and styles of crooked thinking on the part of those in the Social Skepticism movement, click here, or on the Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation icon to the left.
The Ethical Skeptic Site Glossary (and Lexicon)
Qualitas Clava Error – club quality error. The presumption on the part of role-playing or celebrity-power-seeking social skeptics that their club or its power, is important in ensuring the quality of science and scientific understanding on the part of the broader population. The presumption that external club popularity and authority, lock step club allegiance and presumptive stacks of probable knowledge will serve to produce valid or quality outcomes inside scientific, rational or critical thought processes. The pretense of encouraging skepticism, while at the same time promoting conclusions. Such thought fails in light of time proven quality improvement practices.
quo facto malo – Latin for ‘having done this evil’. When a person desires to do evil to another, they will manufacture or fantasize in their mind, offenses their target has committed, which serve to therefore justify their actions; harm which they had conducted or intended to conduct from very beginning, but were simply waiting for the right excuse to blame it upon.
quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur – that which can be declared without basis, can be dismissed without basis. This phrase, does not mean that the subject declaration is existentially incorrect, nor that the antithetical set therefore bears truth – rather simply that I can refuse to accede to such a declaration, without any particular reason or soundness in arguing. While this is a form of skepticism, the apothegm can be abused to mistakenly perform debunking. The clarifying action on the part of the skeptic being its usage as a refusal to accede versus a negation of an idea (inverse negation fallacy). The latter is not warranted inside this principle of philosophy.
Quotidie Mortem – the psychopathic belief that through the administering of a poison slowly over time, one is not actually killing the person or persons they seek to murder. Often defended by the quip “The dose makes the poison.”
Quoting out of Context Fallacy – a proponent’s selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning, in order to impugn or support specific ideas.
Rank Assent – one employs or allows the trials and injustices faced in one’s apprenticeship inside a career or social standing, to stand as a type of barrier to entry to their field – after the trial or injustice no longer applies to them personally. I am not going to expose this immoral assault, because once I have passed and survived it, it will be a great barrier to entry for those who follow me. Very common in Hollywood and Music.
Rappaport Claim or Theory – a perspective useful in detecting official deception, based upon a quip by anthropologist Roy A. Rappaport, which states “If a proposition is going to be taken to be unquestionably true, it is important that no one understand it.” A commentary on the effectiveness of obfuscation at the intersection of pseudo-theory and wicker man defenses. Such a proposition must feature the traits of pseudo-theory, in that it explains everything under a Lindy effect (and therefore likely explains nothing in reality). Moreover, every critique of such an idea’s features must be deemed as a straw man, thus its elemental claims cannot be pinned down nor tested, because every (genuine) skeptic of its tenets is inevitably ‘wrong’ in some regard (a wicker man defense).
Rational Thinking – a demonstrated ability to handle plurality with integrity.
Rat’s Option – when the appearance of a choice is offered, however the only option offered is a preordained path which involves a trap.
Reach Around – an award or accolade given within clubs of particular thinking, to other members of the same club for ‘celebrating a visible and championing club member’ in order to increase the club member’s viability as an authority; in contrast to an accolades tendered for a lifelong pursuit of work on behalf of mankind, or in development of mercy, infrastructures, economies or new technologies.
Reactance – the urge to do the opposite of what someone wants you to do out of a need to resist a perceived attempt to force you out of a constrained adopted choice.
Reactive Devaluation – devaluing proposals, observations, data or ideas only because they purportedly originated with an adversary group or individual.
Reactive Dissonance (in business and legal domains, also called ‘malfeasance’) – the fallacious habitual mindset of a researcher or doctrine of a group conducting research, wherein when faced with a challenging observation, study or experiment outcome, to immediately set aside rational data collection, hypothesis reduction and scientific method protocols in favor of crafting a means to dismiss the observation.
Reason (The Three Forms)
Abductive Reason (Diagnostic Inference) – a form of precedent based inference which starts with an observation then seeks to find the simplest or most likely explanation. In abductive reasoning, unlike in deductive reasoning, the premises do not guarantee the conclusion. One can understand abductive reasoning as inference to the best known explanation.
Inductive Reason (Logical Inference) – is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given.
Deductive Reason (Reductive Inference) – is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion. This includes the instance where the elimination of alternatives (negative premises) forces one to conclude the only remaining answer.
‘The Reason’ Fallacy – with human beings, the reason why something is done or stands in effect, is rarely the real reason for it.
Recency Bias – the tendency to accept more recent information as being more credible or holding more gravitas in research.
Recidivism – a tendency, despite personal perception or intention otherwise, to relapse into a previous condition or mode of behavior when the spotlight is removed from a person who is posing as a skeptic or virtue signalling.
Reciprocating Effect – cause and effect are reversed, then reversed again, over and over in a chicken and egg relationship. The effector hysteria around an observation is said to be the cause of it, and then vice versa, ad infinitum. It assumes no validity to the basic genesis of the argument.
Recursive Definition Fallacy – defining a phrase or word, by means of a definition or change in context which occurred after the original usage under discussion.
Red Herring – presentation of an argument that may or may not be logically valid on its own, but distracts the discussion away from a failing argument, as well as failing nonetheless to address the context of the issue in question or address its logical validity.
Red Shirt Syndrome – a belief that injury/calamity/ruin only happens to other people (those in red shirts on Star Trek – The Original Series) or those who deserve it for some subconsciously held reason. Ignorance of the principle that a pervasive systemic injury happens to almost everyone exposed to it, to varying degrees, and not merely to the unfortunate few. It is just the few who are indeed detected or measured.
Redactionary Principle – the lifecycle management of chemicals, adjuvants or biological agents which do not indicate immediate classic major pathology pathways in test animals, into a final phase of testing upon the broader human population, in order to speed them to market and generate revenue during long term employment testing. Establishment of activist ‘skeptics’ to patrol and ensure any failures are squelched as constituting only pseudoscience and anecdote.
Reducibility – the ability of an argument (as as the case in mathematics) to reduce the complexity of a question and focus in on the core argument instead – eliminating all irrelevant, dependent, unresolvable, unsolvable and incoherent ideas competing for resolution.
Reduction (Philosophy of Science) – the disassembly of asymmetry between logical objects such that each maybe be examined individually and in relation to their series contribution to the whole in terms of cause, effect and risk. The process of ex ante predicting or ex poste observing the macroscopic characteristics of a logical or physical object by identifying and manipulating the characteristics and interplay of its microscopic components, ostensibly at the lowest level of inspection which can be defined. Reduction must be pursued before a process which may result in a claim to induction, deduction or assessment of risk can be successfully undertaken. Reduction reveals a bias for understanding. Reduction is the path taken by the ethical skeptic who eschews abductive and panductive inference (the habit of social skeptics). Accordingly, the purpose of reduction is four-fold:
- Distinguish critical factors, risks & effects from merely influencing or irrelevant ones
- Identify the critical path of inquiry and possible inductive or deductive syllogism
- Detect the presence and eliminate the contribution of agency
- Establish robust study design/Mitigate testing or analytical noise.
Reductionist’s Error – when one demands evidence recitation which cannot possibly be provided because the argument is over a point of philosophy or well established precedent of no particular origin. Demanding evidence for 2 + 2 = 4, or ‘charity is love.’
Referential Reification Fallacy – assuming all words refer to existing and mature elements of science, and that the meaning of words are implicitly qualified within the things they refer to; then further presupposing that this referential definition employed then is also mature enough to be employed to discredit a contended set of observations or ideas.
Refutation – a negative or neutral criticism against an attack or position.
Regressive Bias – a certain state of mind wherein perceived high likelihoods are overestimated while perceived low likelihoods are underestimated.
Reification Fallacy – assuming that sciencey sounding words refer to existing and mature elements of science, and that the meaning of words are implicitly qualified within the things they refer to.
Relative Privation (also known as “appeal to worse problems” or “not as bad as”) – an informal fallacy of dismissing an argument or complaint due to the existence of more important problems in the world, regardless of whether those problems bear relevance to the initial argument. A form of ignoratio elenchi argument.
Relegation Error – a principle wherein an authority of control or truth establishes a circumstance wherein, any advance in validity which is produced by outside entities, is immediately appropriated to become part of the truth base of the controlling authority alone. By default, the controlling authority then must be held as the truth standard. All other entities remain in a perpetual state of practice ‘wrong’ – regardless of their actual track record. For example, successes of integrative medicine being immediately co-opted into academic science and accordingly stripped of their non-academic pedigree. Those pseudosciences, thereafter continue to be disdained and ignored as quackery, hokum and non-science by academia. By fait accompli under this method, outsider research, economic theories or controversial avenues of research will always constitute anecdotal pseudoscience, by practice of idea theft alone.
Relevance – the nature of a proposition such that it is consistent with an argument or adds to its value, clarity or quality.
Religion – the compulsory adherence to an idea around which testing for falsification is prohibited. The process of a power wielding group abusing the rights of individuals through the desire to make compulsory, that which cannot be held to account.
Rent-Seeking – a version of appeal to authority, coined by Nassim Taleb, in which a person derives income simply because they are touted as an authority, or hold a position inside an organization with such authority, or hold a bureaucratic or power influence over the administration of assets/money – drawing unjustly thereof. Under such a model of value chain theory, even the rental of an asset involves some risk – however the principle hinges more around the idea that, for every dollar of compensation an equal and opposite flow of value should be provided. In similar context this is the origin of the statement of ethical skepticism ‘Risk is the leaven of the bread of hard work. Beware of those who’s trade is in neither.”
Researcher’s Catch 22 – the instance brought about through over-representation of fake skeptics or science communicators in the media. A condition wherein, on one hand if one is too liberal or permissive in their semantics regarding a paranormal topic, they will be crucified for promoting ‘woo’ by our fake ‘science communicators’ who don’t know their ascience from a hole in the ground. On the other hand if they choose the wrong words – reminiscent of catch-phrases familiar to skeptics, Atheists, monists and nihilists – thereafter such agency will jump on the chance to crucify the topic as therefore a ‘pseudoscience’ as well (by your own admission as a researcher). Either the researcher’s individual reputation, or their field of career study – is placed at risk. This presents a possible no-win scenario. This is also a common challenge which faces a focused-research corporation head with regard to competitors and stockholders.
Researcher’s Conundrum – if I conduct objective research inside a subject which is a pseudoscience, then I am considered a pseudo-scientist. However, if I dismiss the subject out of hand, with no research, then I am regarded as having been scientific in my approach.
Restraint Bias – the tendency to overestimate one’s ability to show restraint or demonstrate character in the face of temptation to behave badly. The overestimation of the acts of others as being beneath your level of sophisticated self control.
Retrospective Causality – the argument that because some event has occurred, its occurrence must have been caused by a conforming plausible impetus, such as hype and hysteria, and not any other influence.
Rhetoric – a critique which focuses on an arguer’s ability, technique or capability to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations. An answer looking for a question, looking for a victim. Persuasion and Locution crafted in such a fashion as to be the reverse of science. A method of fooling the educated and scientifically trained, into adopting shaky positions of consensus.
Rhetorical Tautology – employment of phrase or principle in such a way as to imply that its offing as stated is of patently obvious, self justifying or intrinsic epistemological merit, while evading issues of evidence or valid reasoning supporting the stated principle or phrase.
Rhetosophy – Rhetoric disguised as philosophy; wherein the arguer conceals his subject of contention and crafts the philosophy to appear as a stand alone ethic, independent of the point he is surreptitiously attempting to persuade.
Rhyme as Reason Effect – rhyming statements are perceived as more truthful.
Richeliean Appeal to Authority – a contention which is considered correct by means of social power or celebrity held on the part of its proponent. An appeal to consensus made by a group which influenced or measured the claimed consensus. An appeal to an authority who is notable at least in part for authoritarian or coercive measures they have employed to maintain power. Also an employment of coercive tactics which include censorship or propaganda-charging the media, establishing a large network of internal spies or sycophants, forbidding the discussion of specific matters in public or publishing of one sided science studies, patrolling of public assemblies or media forums or seeking to harm or defame who dare to disagree.
Richeliean Appeal to Skepticism – an inflation of personal gravitas, celebrity or influence by means of implicit or explicit threats of coercive tactics which can harm or seek to embarrass a victim one wishes to be silenced. Coercive tactics include threats to harm family, contact employers, ridicule, tamper with businesses, employment of celebrity status to conduct defamation activities or actions to defraud, or otherwise cause harm to persons, reputation or property. This includes the circumstance where a Richeliean skeptic encourages and enjoys a form of ‘social peer review,’ empowered via politics or a set of sycophants who are willing to enact harm to a level which the Richeliean power holder himself would not personally stoop.
Richelieu’s Law – given a sufficient quantity of statements of merit, actions or associations on the part of an individual, a case can be made that one of those things either serves to condemn that individual or runs anathema to the essence of all their other contentions (apparent hypocrisy). An exploitative coercive argument which proceeds along the lines of the Richeliean quote: “Give me six lines written by the most honest man and I will find in them something to hang him.”
Rickrolling – a form of bait and switch or big politico advisory business wherein one sets up a fake scandal, which tantalizes the opposition, take years to prosecute and extract critical evidence – and finally where in the end, when the protected critical documents, recordings, testimony, media are exposed – it turns out to be nothing but a mocking of the whole process, exposing it as a complete and foolish waste of time. Term is derived from the internet meme of users pursuing avenues of research, being redirected as a bait and switch spoof, to videos of Rick Astley singing “Never Gonna Give You Up”.
The Riddle of Nelsonian Knowledge – it behooves the holder of Nelsonian knowledge to know more about this embargoed knowledge than would be reasonably expected inside standard ignorance. The irony with Nelsonian knowledge is that it demands of its ‘ignorant party’ a detailed awareness of schema, its depth and a flawless monitoring, which is unparalleled in official knowledge. If our desire to avoid so-called ‘baseless pseudoscience’ is as casual as we imply; casual to the extreme so as to justify our complete disinterest in it as a species, then why is our knowledge of specifically what is forbidden to study, so damned accurate and thorough? If it is all worthless fodder, then why are its opponents so well organized, trained and armed?
The Riddle of Virtue – competence is the only virtue. Those who do not understand this, are doomed to wear virtue as a costume.
Risk Flippance – the tendency to judge the total risk of a series of transactional events to be equivalent to the risk identified for only one single event in the series.
Road to Damascus Fraud – a person of weak integrity, who is seduced by one philosophy and extols it through practices of vehemency, virtue or deception, who then switches to the exact opposite philosophy and thereafter uses similar tactics and/or intensity of fanaticism – is not to be trusted. They have not ‘seen the light’. Their conversion is not evidence of validity of their latter philosophy, nor evidence of the invalidity of the former.
The Roger Principle – the principle which cites that a multi-skilled, creative, congruent and leadership oriented personality will routinely rank level relative to his or her peers while performing lower organizational or administrative jobs; however will begin to increasingly thrive as they are promoted up through an organization and are exposed to more multifaceted, novel and asymmetric challenge. This will tend to anger the peers who were in contrast limited by means of a Peter Principle. Roger Principle individuals are usually targeted for disdain by tactic/talent limited persons, often out of jealousy or dissonance; and are usually flagged early on by their performance in more chaotic tasks or situations involving uncertainty. They can make for excellent CEO’s, strategists and thought leaders.
Rookem’s Razor – the method wherein the most expensive, fee generating or most oligarch profitable explanation tends to be the correct one at any given time. Medicine in which a symptom is investigated first as if it were cancer, and through the most expensive testing, before considering vastly more likely alternative diagnoses.
Rosach’s Axiom – if a person chooses an invective towards another, with multiple possible definitions or high possible equivocation potential – then they wish for all to infer the most pejorative version of definition, but will imply publicly that they meant the least pejorative definition.
Rule Implied through Its Exception – sometimes also called the “exception proves the rule”, is a type of appeal to authority syllogism which presupposes its affirmation, in that the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes through implication that a general rule exists. For example, a sign that says “parking prohibited on Sundays” (the exception) implies that parking is allowed on the other six days of the week (the rule).
Rupert’s Axiom of Reason – you cannot reason a person out of a stance which they obtained through thinking they held the sole monopoly on reason to begin with.
Sacred Citizen Complex – the regard of self or of others, defined by some characteristic such as race, skin color, religion, gender or other special status, as being exempt from laws, ethics, morals or other strictures of normal society – simply because of that characteristic or some form of history or institution of injustice they base such exemption upon. The idea that certain persons can be racist/bigoted but others cannot – simply because of such a characteristic.
Salami Slicing – the practice of artificially breaking a scientific study down into sub-components and publishing each sub-component as a separate study. If the paper involves consilience from studies derived from a number of disciplines, this might be acceptable. However, when the studies are broken down simply to increase the publishing history of its authors or make a political position appear to be more scientific, through ‘a thousand studies support the idea that…’ styled articles, then this is a form of pseudoscience.
Salience – the nature of predicate, constraint or premise wherein it adds value, clarity or quality to an argument.
Salience Projection – our tendency to focus on the most outstanding or notable features regarding a concept or person as indicating likelihood inside the concept or predictability of a person.
Sampled Population Mismatch – a study design methodology wherein a small population is sampled for a signal which is desired for detection, and a large population cohort is sampled regarding a signal which is not desired for detection. For example, using n=44 (unvaccinated) and 1,680 (vaccinated) in order to show that those vaccinated exhibit a lower rate of atopic allergies. The variance required to upshift the desired signal in the smaller group is on the order of a mere 2 or 3 persons. The odds of this occurring are very high, especially if the small group all originates from the same or similar lifestyle.
Sargon’s Law – whenever an ideologue makes a character judgement about someone they are debating with, that character judgement is usually true about themselves.
Satisficing – a term which describes bias from the perspective of professional intelligence analysis, wherein one chooses the first hypothesis that appears good enough rather than carefully identifying all possible hypotheses and determining which is most consistent with the evidence.
SAW House/SAW Trap – a condition wherein one is left with no option but to harm another innocent person, in order to protect themself or their loved ones from demise or extensive harm – and is then blamed, punished or extorted by an outside entity for that harming of another. Named for the SAW series of movies.
Scale Obfuscation – shooting high and shooting low. Any form of a priori assumption wherein a researcher presumes that larger or elemental sample populations are congruent with more study or better science. This as contrasted with an incremental scientific method under a condition of making open context field observations first, crafting the right (rather than presumed right) question, followed by study of multiple iterations of smaller, discrete, cohort and more focused populations, built then into larger field databases and study.
Bigger Data is Better Fallacy – the invalid assumption which researchers make when attempting to measure a purported phenomena, that data extraction inside a very large source population as the first and only step of scientific study, will serve to produce results which are conclusive or more scientific. The same presumption error can apply to meta-analysis. Wherein such an analysis is conducted in a context of low/detached, rather than informed knowledge sets, and will serve to dilute critical elements of signal and intelligence which could be used to elucidate the issue further.
Big is Science Error – bigger sample sizes and study data is a way of bypassing the scientific method, yet still tender an affectation of science and gravitas. Any time a study cannot be replicated, and a call to consensus is made simply because it would be too difficult to replicate the study basis of the consensus.
Yule-Simpson Paradox – a trend appears in different groups of data can be manipulated to disappear or reverse (see Effect Inversion) when these groups are combined.
Elemental Pleading – breaking down the testing of data or a claim into testing of its constituents, in order to remove or filter an effect which can only be derived from the combination of elements being claimed. For instance, to address the claim that doxycycline and EDTA reduce arterial plaque, testing was developed to measure the impact of each item individually, and when no effect was found, the combination was dismissed as well without study, and further/combination testing was deemed to be ‘pseudoscience’.
Scapegoating – the practice of singling out a person or group for unmerited blame, almost always for targeting with consequent negative treatment. Scapegoating may be conducted by individuals against individuals, individuals against groups, groups against individuals, and groups against groups.
Scarecrow – a high visibility claim that an opposing group has proposed ideas which are of patently ludicrous viability; when in fact no such theories or ideas have been proposed by the disliked group, and moreover that the only broaching of such a construct, theory or idea originates solely from the claiming group itself. Extreme Straw Man.
Schadenfreude/Epicaricacy – schadenfreude is the enjoyment of witnessing the misfortune of others through their own mistake, accident or self inflicted agony. In contrast, epicariacy is the enjoyment of witnessing the harm one individual receives at the hands of another, usually maliciously-minded party. The similar English expression would be ‘Roman holiday’, a metaphor from the poem Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage by George Gordon (Lord Byron) wherein a gladiator in ancient Rome expects to be “butchered to make a Roman holiday,” i.e. the audience would take pleasure from watching his forced suffering at another’s hands. The term suggests motives of pleasure or political expediency beyond simple schadenfreude; consisting more of debauchery and exploitation for gain in addition to sadistic enjoyment. One exception to both meanings, and common mistake in their application however, is citing schadenfreude or epicariacy in the case where one is witnessing a temper tantrum. Temper tantrums are intended forms of violence upon others, and in no way reflect a person being in a state of misfortune or harm.
sciebam – (latin: I knew) – an alternative form of knowledge development, which mandates that science can only begin with the step of ‘ask a question’ or ‘state a hypothesis’. A non-scientific process which bypasses the first steps of the scientific method: observation, intelligence development and formulation of necessity. This form of pseudoscience/non-science presents three vulnerabilities:
- First it presumes that the researcher possesses substantially all the knowledge or framework they need, lacking only to fill in final minor gaps in understanding. This creates an illusion of knowledge effect on the part of the extended domain of researchers. As each bit of provisional knowledge is then codified as certain knowledge based upon prior confidence. Science can only progress thereafter through a series of shattering paradigm shifts.
- Second, it renders science vulnerable to the possibility that, if the hypothesis, framework or concept itself is unacceptable at the very start, then its researcher therefore is necessarily conducting pseudoscience. This no matter the results, nor how skillfully and expertly they may apply the methods of science. And since the hypothesis is now a pseudoscience, no observation, intelligence development or formulation of necessity are therefore warranted. The subject is now closed/embargoed by means of circular appeal to authority.
- Finally, the question asked at the beginning of a process of inquiry can often prejudice the direction and efficacy of that inquiry. A premature or poorly developed question, and especially one asked under the influence of agency (not simply bias) – and in absence of sufficient observation and intelligence – can most often result quickly in a premature or poorly induced answer.
Science – the dispassionate idempotent process of skeptical observation, necessity, questioning, constructing, testing, reducing and consensus by which society builds the body of knowledge; as well as that body of knowledge itself which results from such process.
¡science! – lying through tendering the appearance of being scientific (pseudoscience). A process made to look like science, which is 25% assumption, 25% outdated or semi-relevant study, 25% derision and bullying and 25% false claims to consensus. Partly testing a favored hypothesis and declaring it true, coupled with blocking of testing on competing ideas and declaring all of them false or pseudoscience.
Science as the Sciences Error – constrained misdefinition and equivocation of the word science to, rather than the method and body of knowledge development, a restrictive domain of the academic sciences alone. This so that skepticism is free to now errantly be applied in any fashion ‘outside of science.’
Science Bundling – citing a couple accepted norms of science and then throwing into the bundle a contention which is contested, political or questionable. This in order to intimidate a neutral audience into accepting the questionable assertion as being equal in regard with the other scientific norms. Often practiced by political bloggers and propaganda journalists. This is practiced as well in the pejorative, citing that a person’s beliefs or contentions are equivalent to Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, BigFoot and Flat Earth Theory.
Science Communicator – as distinct from a journalist or investigative reporter. In totalitarian societies a ‘communicator’ is a emergent stage of progressive takeover and indoctrination, which offers the population time to step into line. The communicators arrive before the enforcement officials, who arrive before the Maršal (Marshals), who arrive before the military police; whereupon absolute control of rule is enforced, usually under a dictator. A science communicator is not a recognized entity in a free press.
Science Delusion – coined by Rupert Sheldrake, this is the belief that science has already ascertained the principal components of the nature of reality, and that only a small portion of the unknown details remains to be filled in. Ethical skepticism supports bringing attention to this cognitive mistake, but rather than deeming it an error of science, instead identifies the problem as our social influences which corrupt the common underlying philosophy in defense of science, skepticism. What is known as social skepticism.
Science Faction Bias – the forcing of authors, dramas, screenplays, movies and storytellers of science fiction to compulsively conform to an observer’s personal version of science. An irritation with imagination if it wanders into realms which disagree with the observer’s personal ontology, sold as being indignant over violations of established science.
Science-Pseudoscience Bifurcation – the mistaken belief that a non-science is the same thing as a pseudoscience, that a pseudoscience is a topic or avenue of research, and that a pseudoscience can eventually become a science. When in fact only a non-science can become a science, because pseudoscience is simply a pretense and a false method, and not a topic in the first place.
Sciencewashing – both the existential state or the actions involved in dressing up a corporate profit or monist control motivated agenda as “the science”.
Scienter – is a legal term that refers to intent or knowledge of wrongdoing while in the act of executing it. An offending party then has knowledge of the ‘wrongness’ of their dealings, methods or data, but choose to turn a blind eye to the issue, commensurate to executing or employing such dealings, methods or data. This is typically coupled with a failure to follow up on the impacts of the action taken, a failure of science called ignoro eventum.
The Scientific Method – a method of knowledge development bearing traits of process accountability which serve to transcend mere casual inquiry, mitigate bias and proscribe surreptitious agency masquerading as knowledge. A strategic process, which employs direct observation, analysis, ethics, skepticism, as well as experimental methodology and hypothesis testing, as tools inside a broader more comprehensive set of diligence.
I. Observation – Domain Observation
II. Intelligence – Intelligence Gathering/Schema Construction
III. Necessity – Establishment of Necessity
IV. Construct Formulation (by Sponsors)
V. Ockham’s Razor/Peer Support (Skeptics are allies not opponents)
VI. Hypothesis Development
VII. Inductive and Statistical Study
VIII. Competitive Hypothesis Framing
IX. Deductive Testing/Inductive Consilience
X. Hypothesis Modification/Reduction
XI. Falsification Testing/Repeatability
XII. Theory Formulation/Refinement
XIII. Peer Review
Scientific Resilience – ability of a society to perceive and deliberate a course of discovery and development which targets the alleviation of suffering; one which rehabilitates its scientific methodology and knowledge gracefully and robustly to misfortune, mistake or change.
Scientific Shilliteracy – a claim to scientific authority, which is belied through display of scientific ineptness.
Scooby-Doo Science/Scientist – a mindset born by fake skeptics wherein every mystery is easily resolved by current science understanding or the pretense that science has studied a subject when it has not – a ‘science’ which also features a convenient ability to highlight the bad person in the argument – usually of a consistent gender and ethnicity.
Scoop Abuse – when a social skepticism media outlet inflates methodical cynicism and twists maligns or lies about the facts of an event in order to increase their media outlet notoriety at the expense of a disliked individual, who sponsors or considers ideas which they do not want communicated.
Scoop Inflation – when a social skepticism media outlet inflates methodical cynicism and twists maligns or lies about the facts of an event in order to increase their media outlet notoriety in becoming the first cynical news outlet to condemn new ideas or events which they do not want communicated.
Screaming Shield – a method of defending one’s power by establishing a condition in which innocent people will be harmed if your power is threatened. A way of holding others hostage, at risk of harm, if the cases arises wherein one challenges your monist or supreme control. Placing munitions manufacturing inside of a baby milk factory, or propping up a socialist government by means of it critically supporting all the poor. Therefore if you topple the government, you are Q.E.D. ‘harming the poor’.
Script Delusion – a person who argues from a scripted set of talking points is under the delusion both that the recipient has never heard their information before, and that the hearer regards what they have to say as honest reflections, science or free thinking.
Sculptured Narrative – a social declaration which fits a predetermined agenda, purported to be of ‘weight of evidence’ and science in origin. However, in reality stems more from only the removal/ignoring of the majority or plurality of available or ascertainable evidence, in order to sculpt a conclusion which was sought before research ever began (see Wittgenstein sinnlos Skulptur Mechanism). Conducting science by dwelling only in the statistical and meta-analytical domains while excising all data which does not fit the social narrative of funding entities, large corporations or sskeptic organizations. Refusing to conduct direct studies, publishing studies which contain an inversion effect and filtering of countermanding studies out by attacking journals, authors and ignoring large bodies of evidence, consilience or falsification opportunity.
Sea Lioning – is a type of Internet trolling which consists of bad-faith requests for evidence, or repeated questions, the purpose of which is not clarification or elucidation, but rather an attempt to derail a discussion, appeal to authority as if representing science, or to wear down the patience of one’s opponent. May involve invalid repetitive requests for proof which fall under a proof gaming fallacy and highlight the challenger’s lack of scientific literacy.
Secundum Quid – comes about from failing to appreciate the distinction between using words absolutely and using them with qualification. Spruce trees, for example, are green with respect to their foliage (they are ‘green’ with qualification); it would be a mistake to infer that they are green absolutely because they have brown trunks and branches.
Segal’s Law – a man with a watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never sure.
Self Confirming Process – a process which is constructed to only find the answer which was presumed before its formulation. A lexicon, set of assumptions or data, procedure or process of logical calculus which can only serve to confirm a presupposed answer it was designed to find in the first place. A process which bears no quality control, review, or does not contain a method through which it can reasonably determine its own conclusion to be in question or error.
Self-Fulfilling Inductive Prediction – prediction which is confirmed through induction by means of a separate rationale which appears to place its hypothesis at risk, whose predictive measure in fact has already been proved to be true by previous deductive inference. Pseudo-hypothesis – such as showing that people who are told they are predisposed to gain weight, by means of genetic testing – actually tend to gain more weight. And attributing this effect to the psychology of ‘having been told they were predisposed’ as opposed to the simple fact that they have the genetics which predispose them in the first place. A common study trick in psychology.
Self-Sublation (autoaufheben) – Hegelian principle of a dialectic which is stuck in stasis through an idea both canceling and sustaining itself at the same time. A doubled meaning: it means both to cancel (or negate) and to preserve at the same time.
Semantics Jousting – the twisting of the context inside which a quotation of authority or a recitation or scientific principle is applied, such that it appears to support a separate argument and inappropriately promote a desired specific outcome.
Semmelweis Reflex – the tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts one’s held paradigm.
Seth’s Razor – all things being equal, any explanation aside from the simplest one, constitutes a conspiracy theory. Also, everything is a conspiracy theory. The principal technique of methodical cynicism, enforcing stacks of mandatory or pseudo-probable misinformation, as truth.
Shared Information Bias – known as the tendency for group members to spend more time and energy discussing information that all members are already familiar with (i.e., shared information), and less time and energy discussing information that only some members are aware of (i.e., unshared information).
Shaw’s Provision – one cannot rationally argue out what wasn’t rationally argued in — George Bernard Shaw
Shermer Error – mistaking the role of follow-on empirical observation in the confirmation of data which is simply being described. Regarding statistical analysis as needing empirical confirmation, when one is describing empirical observation distributions in the first place.
Shermerganda – the misrepresentation of science, argument or the scientific method by citing Michael Shermer as a source or similar very highly visible SSkteptic as an authority on science, despite their lack of expertise in the subject under consideration.
Shevel’s Inconsistency – a inconsistency wherein one simultaneously contends that science has shown a research subject to be invalid, yet at the same time chooses to designate any research into that subject as constituting pseudoscience. The two positions are mutually exclusive. The two positions are also not compatible when the pseudoscience in question has not been studied by science in the first place. In such a circumstance, investigators risk being accused of a being a ‘believer’, unless the researcher makes visible and extreme overtures to debunking or extreme doubt (methodical doubt, not Cartesian Doubt) on the matter, as part of their work.
Shibboleth – is any custom or tradition, particularly a speech pattern, that distinguishes one group of people (an ingroup) from disliked or targeted ‘others’ (outgroups). Shibboleths have been used throughout history in many societies as passwords, catch phrases, simple ways of self-identifying, signaling loyalty and affinity, maintaining traditional segregation or keeping out perceived interlopers.
Shield Effect – when an arguer in a valid matter of discourse drops any need to reference diligent research, method, or data collection in support of their contended position because of a false status given to a higher visibility arguer, or member of their club, who has enjoined the discussion on their side.
Shopcraft – traits, arrival forms and distributions of data which exhibit characteristics of having been produced by a human organization, policy or mechanism. A result which is touted to be natural, random or unconstrained, however which features patterns or mathematics which indicate human intervention is at play inside its dynamics. A method of detecting agency, and not mere bias, inside a system.
Shotgun Barn Fallacy – when one attempts to state an argument and begins to gradually reframe it into a conformingly correct but completely different argument, as it becomes more and more apparent that the original argument was flawed. Firing a shotgun at the broadside of a barn and then drawing the bulls-eye around the pellet holes.
Shrouded Furtive Fallacy – extensive recitation of historical and peripheral information tender the semblance of deep research and professionalism; yet are only posed to serve as a distraction inside an article whose crucial argument centers solely on accusations of malfeasance or lying on the part of its target opponents.
Silence Denial Fallacy – those who will deny one their silence, privacy or dissent, are in reality attempting to deny one their very existence.
Simplicity Sell – when making a pitch through the contention that something is easy. “Look, its simple right?”
Simulans Legatus – when purposely positioning one’s self inside a group of the most extreme members of an opposing group of thought, one can simply present a statesmanlike posture and akratically troll the community, thereafter highlighting only the natural absurd, abusive and fanatical extreme responses of the opposing side. All while maintaining a calm rational composure in contrast. A passive sales technique and method of misrepresentation of both your and their groups, capitalizing on combative habituation and the fact that there is always an extreme 8% in any group.
Sin – denial of the right to thrive. An enslaving spiritual trick which is played upon good people, using their fear of the unknown, guilt over minor things they have been told they have done wrong, along with the specter of punishment and justice – in order to compel them to offer their labor or money to you for free. An artifice employed to obscure the more important spiritual principles of personal responsibility, circumspection and development.
sinnlos – a Wittgenstein proposition framing class identifying propositions which are useless. A contention which does not follow from the evidence, is correct at face value but disinformative or is otherwise useless.
Skepid – a state of being achieved by a skeptic who joins a club seeking to enforce rationality, critical thinking or reason, wherein they lose the ability to be circumspect, question their own club and further then adopt a belief in the effectiveness of club quality. A creeping stupidity and ignorance encroaches on such an individual, blinded by their assumed superiority, bandwagon and cheerleader effects and the convincing tricks of methodical cynicism and inverse negation. Essentially so skeptical that they become stupid.
Skeptic – one who practices the method of suspended judgment, engages in dispassionate evidence gathering and objective unbiased reasoning in execution of the scientific method, shows willingness to consider opposing explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, and who pursues goals of clarity and value in support of our knowledge development.
Skeptic Appeal to Authority – using a persona who’s only expertise on a topic is that they have declared themselves to be a skeptic, or an expert of dubious credentials and/or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea. Appealing to skepticism as a basis for enforcing an idea.
Skeptical Inversion – when applying skepticism to useless subjects which bear little or no impact on humanity, while in contrast simultaneously and completely ignoring skepticism in matters of high risk of impact on humanity which are underpinned by conflict of interest, incomplete or sketchy science.
Skeptical Psychologist’s Fallacy – an opponent presupposes the objectivity of his own Skeptical position when analyzing a behavioral event on the part of others.
Skeptic’s Dilemma – shortcuts to denial are more oppressive even than are shortcuts to the affirmative, because the former is then regarded as truth. The skeptic who does not see this, is not a skeptic.
Skeptive Dissonance – the difficult to articulate or grasp, cognitive discomfort experienced upon one’s first perception of the disconnect between fake skepticism and real or effective science.
Skereto Curve/Rule – a condition wherein 99% of the skeptics are focused on and obsessing over 1% of the problem.
Skulptur Mechanism – aka as Evidence Sculpting – the pseudoscientific method of treating evidence as a work of sculpture. Methodical inverse negation techniques employed to dismiss data, block research, obfuscate science and constrain ideas such that what remains is the conclusion one sought in the first place. A common tactic of those who boast of all their thoughts being ‘evidence based’. The tendency to view a logical razor as a device which is employed to ‘slice off’ unwanted data (evidence sculpting tool), rather than as a cutting tool (pharmacist’s cutting and partitioning razor) which divides philosophically valid and relevant constructs from their converse.
Slack Exploitation (Ambiguity) – a form of equivocation or rhetoric wherein an arguer employs a term which at face value appears to constrain the discussion or position contended to a specific definition or domain. However, a purposely chosen word or domain has been employed which allows for several different forms/domains of interpretation of the contention on the part of the arguer. Often this allows the arguer to petition the listener to infer a more acceptable version of his contention, when in fact he is asserting what he knows to be a less acceptable form of it.
Slippery Slope – asserting that a relatively small first step in accepting data or ideas inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact/event that should not happen, thus the first step should not happen. While this fallacy is a popular one, it is, in its essence, an appeal to probability fallacy.
Snoping – when faced with a question which when investigated, might result accurately in an unwanted answer, preemptively ask an extreme or more ridiculous form of the question instead, or shift the query context slightly, so that the answer to the new question can be derived and published quickly, without research and be determined as ‘False’ or ‘Mostly False.’ Pursue the inverse technique when a ‘True’ or ‘Mostly True’ answer is desired in lieu of an actual falsity. Producing a False or True conclusion and publishing it within 24 hours of the question even being raised.
Social Conformance Bias – any influence which implies that if you do not agree, then you will be in some ways rejected to ostracized by your former peer group. Employment of peer/media/social pressure instead of rational case and argument to establish consensus.
Social Desirability Bias – the tendency to over-report socially desirable characteristics or behaviors in one self and under-report socially undesirable characteristics or behaviors.
Social Epistemology – when we conceive of epistemology as including knowledge and justified belief as they are positioned within a particular social and historical context, epistemology becomes social epistemology. Since many stakeholders view scientific facts as social constructions, they would deny that the goal of our intellectual and scientific activities is to find facts. Such constructivism, if weak, asserts the epistemological claim that scientific theories are laden with social, cultural, and historical presuppositions and biases; if strong, it asserts the metaphysical claim that truth and reality are themselves socially constructed. Moreover, in recognizing this, when social justice or the counter to a perceived privilege are warranted, short cuts to science in the form of hyper and hypo epistemologies are enacted through bypassing the normal frustrating process of peer review, and substituting instead political-social campaigns – waged to act in lieu of science. These campaigns of ‘settled science’ are prosecuted in an effort to target a disliked culture, non-violent belief set, ethnicity or class – for harm and removal of human rights.
Social Gadfly – an argument which is made through an appeal to practices, risk, impacts, standards or morals as underpinning the validity of the argument.
Social Inversion – a condition wherein the people who say and do the right things, look the right part, use the proper words, become the elite and/or are members of the right party/club and clothe themselves in proper method and virtues – tend to produce the most ineffective outcomes or even detrimental results. In contrast, those who can never seem to say, do, be or in any way portray things which are correct or socially acceptable in the eyes of the correct group, tend to produce better results or at the least results which are not as calamitous as the correct group.
Social Peer Review – a process of acting on behalf of science, and pretense of conducting science, encouraged by celebrity skeptics – where in one presumes that by declaring themselves to be a skeptic, any critique they offer towards a disliked subject, pseudoscience or person is therefore now tantamount to application of scientific peer review. Usually backed by the Richeliean power of celebrities or social skepticism itself.
Social Priming – preparing a person to adopt a particular desired stance by encouraging or through sleight-of-hand getting them to identify with the mindset of a person who would take that stance, in advance of asking the intended question. For example, asking a person to identify what a skeptic is, before asking them if they consider mediumship as a domain worthy of research.
Social Skepticism –
1. a form of social activism which seeks abuse of science through a masquerade of its underlying philosophical vulnerability, skepticism. An imperious set of political, social, and religious beliefs which proliferate through teaching weaponized fake skepticism to useful idiots. Agency which actively seeks to foment conflict between science and the lay public, which then exploits such conflict to bolster its celebrity and influence.
2. a form of weaponized philosophy which masquerades as science, science enthusiasm or science communication. Social skepticism enforces specific conclusions and obfuscates competing ideas via a methodical and heavy-handed science embargo. It promotes charades of critical thought, self aggrandizement and is often chartered to defend corporate/Marxist agendas; all while maintaining a high priority of falsely impugning eschewed individuals and topics. Its philosophies and conclusions are imposed through intimidation on the part of its cabal and cast of dark actors, and are enacted in lieu of and through bypassing actual scientific method. One of the gravest weaknesses of human civilization is its crippling and unaccountable bent toward social coercion. This form of oppression disparages courage and curiosity inside the very arenas where they are most sorely needed.
Failures with respect to science are the result of flawed or manipulated philosophy of science. When social control, close-hold embargo or conformance agents subject science to a state of being their lap-dog, serving specific agendas, such agents err in regard to the philosophical basis of science, skepticism. They are not bad scientists, rather bad philosophers, seeking a socialized goal. They are social skeptics.
solum fieri – the fallacy of implied only occurrence. A common unspoken assumption premise of a religious or virtue argument (usually in the form of a suggestion or accusation), wherein the instance being considered or the person being targeted is unsoundly treated in isolation – as if the only occurrence of such an event or by considering the person to be in isolation. Introducing the idea that if a person gives 9 times but not the 10th time, then they are selfish or protectionist. Or, that a person should adopt fear because they are all alone, and are the first person to ever have encountered a specific troubling situation. A trick of isolating an intended victim, similar to but even more egregious than using anecdote as a final proof.
Solution (Theory) – a theoretical relationship or algorithm which is conjectured to comprise input variables, arrival distributions, controls and measures, parameters, constraints, assumptions, dependencies and interleaved feedback networks – all resulting in a given set of observable outcome measures. A completed solution is the condition where both the forward problem and the inverse problem agree in support of the proposed theoretical relationship.
Sophistry – an argument which is contended though a side’s claim to virtuous features characterizing its formulation, approach or position.
Sophistry Fallacy – when a poorly skilled or experienced philosopher loses an argument, they will inevitably resort to an accusation of sophistry on the part of their opponent. They may not even grasp the fact that their ‘opponent’ is not an opponent at all; rather a peer simply seeking to issue a word of caution, not disagreement. Caution which they interpret to be a threat; an advisement they possess a dearth of intellect with which to grasp.
- One introduces the philosophical level of discussion in the first place,
- One banks on the assumption that no one else is around who is sufficiently skilled to discuss the issue (an appeal to self-authority),
- One perceives a word of open-minded skeptical caution, incorrectly as an argument in opposition,
- One perceives (correctly or incorrectly) that an inner hypocrisy is now potentially exposed and they are now in danger of losing the argument which they started,
- The discussion resides now at a level above the original claimant’s intellectual or experiential capacity, and
- Its last recourse argument is foisted, after exhausting all other memorized arguing scripts (save for the sophistry claim itself).
Sowell’s Axiom – a quip credited to American economist and social theorist, Thomas Sowell, which states that ‘It is so easy to be wrong – and to persist in being wrong – when the costs of being wrong are paid by others’.
Sowert’s Law – a technique of deflection wherein a claim to supposed fact is derived from a stand-alone, manufactured, or trivial observation which is made inside a purposeful context of ignorance or isolation, stripped of its corroborating or supporting aspects. Ignorance + Trivia = “Fact”.
Special Pleading – an attempt to cite a logical object, system or example as an exception to a generally accepted rule, situation, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. The lack of criticism may be as simple as an oversight (e.g., the reasons are thought to be obvious) on the claimant’s part, or further, an application of a double standard.
Special Pleading ad hoc Accusation – when one resorts to accusing an opponent of special pleading based upon its ad hoc rescue potential in an argument. Wherein one regards any reasoning about logical object, system or example to constitute ‘special pleading’ simply because it isn’t about, or doesn’t apply to everything.
Specious – an argument which is only superficially plausible, but actually bears a significant probability that it is wrong. One misleading in appearance, especially misleadingly attractive or plausible.
Sperging – is a slang term which describes certain behavior online which is stereotypically associated with people who have Asperger’s syndrome. The most common meaning refers to excessive discussion or analysis of what would normally be regarded as a very specific, irrelevant or pointless topic.
Sponsor Practice Hyperbole – the fallacy of regarding the process of observation by a sponsor of an idea, to constitute a presentation of ‘science’ the sponsors’ part. This in an effort to subjugate such activity falsely into the realm of pseudoscience for the simple act of being of curious in nature around a disfavored subject. In fact research is simply that, a set of observations, and its false dismissal under the pretense of being deemed a ‘pseudoscience’ is a practice of deception and itself, pseudoscience.
Sponsorship Fallacy – the rejection of an entire methodological basis of a scientific argument and all its underpinning data and experimental history simply because one can point to a bad personality involved in the subject, hoaxes, old misconceptions about the subject or an errant conclusion which was drawn from the discipline, irrespective of the actual validity of its core scientific data and argument.
Soundness – a deductive argument is sound if it is valid and its premises and predicates are true. If either of those conditions does not hold, then the argument is unsound. Truth is determined by looking at whether the argument’s premises, predicates and conclusions are in accordance with facts and logic in the real world.
SSkeptic (Social Skeptic) – a member of an elite Cabal which practices and teaches Deskeption, who’s members also falsely identify themselves as ‘skeptics.’ SSkeptics are self or institutionally appointed activists, posing as rational and logical subject matter experts on a broad variety of topics in which they have performed shill research; with the objective of vitiating all targeted unwelcome thought sets. Far from actually practicing skepticism or science, SSkeptics seek to intimidate others through social enforcement practices promoting a specific cabalistic religion. A religion featuring key mandatory doctrines lacking scientific basis, imperiously passed to the public as unassailable truth.
SSkepticism Projection Fallacy – when one fails to apply skepticism, and default considers the way the Social Skepticism movement sees the world as the way the world really is.
Stakeholder – a person or entity who stands to inherit the outcome of a specific set of actions, to their benefit, harm or ruin.
Stakeholder Ethics – a principle or condition wherein those who bear the negative impact of a decision are allowed to hold those who make that decision, accountable. Further then are allowed to dissent, and reverse that decision or remove the decision maker, even if they claim to be an ‘expert’. A claim to science is not a free pass to tyranny.
Status Quo Bias – the tendency to like things to stay relatively the same, even in the face of necessity and new observations.
Steel Man – a method of arguing in which an arguer will first outline as accurate a depiction of their opponent’s position as they can muster – and thereafter cite where indeed they find that stance to possess merit or strength. This will usually be followed by, rather than simply a critique of weaknesses, a form of ‘but regarding this weakness, I have an idea which I think might work better instead…’ The opposite of straw man arguing.
Stein’s Law – if something cannot go on forever, it will stop. If misinformation cannot go on forever, there is no need for action or a program to make it stop, much less to make it stop immediately; it will stop of its own accord.
Stereotyping – expecting a member of a group to possess certain characteristics reasonably or unreasonably assigned to that group, without having actual information about that individual.
Stickiness – The principle wherein proponents of a theory philosophy often cling to it despite the mounting evidence against it. The theory is abandoned only after its last proponents die. Such obstinacy allows theories to be given a proper run for their money, rather than being prematurely abandoned in the face of scant or specious contrary data that could be overcome with further research and accrued verity. Otherwise, we risk prematurely abandoning theories which could add value in one aspect or are indeed valid themselves.
Stooge Posing – attacks on piece of data or an easily disprovable topic of credulity used as an effort to bolster an opponent’s record of debunking success and club ranking. This reputation to then further allow for irrelevant and unmerited gravitas in addressing other arguments where data and observation do not support the goals of the opponent.
Straw Man Fallacy – misrepresentation of either an ally or opponent’s position, argument or fabrication of such in absence of any stated opinion. Exists in several forms:
Straw Man Argument – crating of or logical calculus under, an argument which either does not exist, is irrelevant or is manipulated and twisted into a different form by a proponent.
Straw Man Conformance – the idea that since a person or group believes or considers subject A to be a potentiality, then an opponent insists that they therefore have endorsed extreme misrepresentations of subject A as well.
Straw Man Profiling – profiling of an individual based on an extreme or misrepresented version of their position. Any man can be made to appear irrational and vile, if his opponents only are allowed to speak on his behalf.
Scare Crow Fabrication – crafting of a position or stance on an issue which an opponent has never tendered, implied or stated. An argument fabricated from complete fiction and used to dissuade persons from viewing that opponent in a positive light.
“If I Only Had a Brain” Straw Man – an argument which would have constituted a straw man argument had the claimant understood it to begin with, however appears only to stem from the arguer’s inability to grasp the issue or logical calculus under discussion or contention.
Straw Man Egoism – a self-focused belief that every argument raised by an opponent is a straw man issued at them personally. Especially when the argument is common inside the domain being discussed.
Streetlight Effect – is a type of observational bias that occurs when people only search for something where it is easiest to look.
Streisand Effect – the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet.
Strength – an inductive argument is strong if in the case that its premises are true, then it is highly probable that its conclusion is also true or testable. Otherwise, if it is improbable or unknown/unknowable that its conclusion is true, then it is said to be weak. Inductive arguments are not truth-preserving; it is never the case that a true conclusion must follow from true premises.
Structure – the logical formulation and relational structure of elements employed to array premises or predicates into a contention or extrapolation which is contended to be valid or sound.
Studium a Studia – when a study is falsely touted as new breaking science, when all the study has accomplished is to study a group of older studies and brought out the same conclusion as suggested by the previous studies it studied. This study is then touted in the future by proponents of the same idea, as a scientific empirical basis for argument.
Style over Substance Fallacy – the undermining of an opponent and their argument or data by citing that it looks too pushed, packaged or promoted (for money) in order to be deemed acceptable or believable.
Subadditivity Effect – the tendency to judge probability of a broader argument to be less than the probabilities of the components of that same argument.
Subception – a perceptual defense that involves unconsciously applying strategies to prevent a troubling stimulus from entering consciousness. The method of deceiving one’s self and others in the process of cynicism, jealousy or denial. A process of expressing unrealized subconscious vitriol, in which one habitually creates artificial ‘violations’ (usually forms of administrative or social protocol which their target ‘does wrong’) which their target of jealously or hate keeps committing – in order for the subception holder to internally justify their ill feelings toward their target.
Subject Ambiguity – the construction or delivery of a message in such words or fashion as to allow for several reasonable interpretations of person, place or thing to which the message applies.
Subjective Validation – occurs when two unrelated or even random events are perceived to be related because a belief, expectation, or hypothesis demands a relationship.
Sunk Cost Skepticism – the phenomenon where SSkeptics justify increased investment or fanaticism in a construct or belief, based on the cumulative prior investment, despite new evidence suggesting that the decision was probably wrong. Fanaticism is directly related to the level of nagging and cumulative inner doubt. Also known as the sunk cost fallacy.
Superior Grasp of the Obvious – the bias on the part of one concealing a rational ego which has been inflated to enormous levels. Levels of ego betrayed by implication and oxymoron that one’s self is the only person who could possibly grasp that which is readily obvious inside complex questions. In fact, a prowess of such potential that the mastery of the obvious can be done from a university cubicle or parents’ basement, and in 4 minutes of research.
Suprency – a currency which functions at a higher level or above the operating domain of a normal currency. Gold as compared to minted metals, bonds as compared to contracts, M3/MZM as compared to M1 monies, spirituality as compared to sex, or capital as compared to M1 money. Both domains require exchanges of value/risk, however can not necessarily share a common reference of exchange because two market tiers may not bear the same dynamics at any given time. The medium of exchange of a higher order and the opposite of loosh, the medium of exchange of a lower order/darkness.
Survivorship Bias – concentrating on the people or data that “survived” some process and inadvertently overlooking those that didn’t because of their lack of observability.
Swift’s Axiom – a principle which states ‘You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into’, attributed to 18th Century Dean of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Dublin, satirist and poet, Jonathan Swift.
Syllogism – A syllogism is a structured form of deductive reasoning, through constraint of an argument by means of two sequitur, major and minor contentions, bounding an argument towards a single conclusion – by deductive elimination of all other potentialities. In the instance where either major or minor argument are not truly deductive or have not eliminated every variant of condition, the syllogism is not a sound basis for inference.