blowhards | The Ethical Skeptic

Take Warning: The blowhards of social epistemology are executing a warfare strategy. Be wise in how you play their game. They are seeking to do harm to people they hate. Not everything they say is wrong, but it is the social outcomes they consistently seek, which should compel one to be truly skeptical of their ‘correctness.’

Social Skeptics, view the world of science as a mechanism which can be manipulated and altered to accommodate non-scientific goals, or even promote false scientific conclusions if justified in their view by the moral authority entailed. In their ideology, science should be employed as the football which enables dictation of politics, beliefs, morals, standards of human interaction, tolerable or necessary human rights, denigration of specific races, peoples, genders, or groups, acceptable government, political parties and soft economic principles. Accordingly, there are 21 warning flags that I look for, in order to begin to sense that a social epistemology is at play.

Notice the similarity in tactics when comparing political candidate smear campaigns and the habits on the part of these fake science pundits.

The ‘science’ is promoted as one of the 768 correctness agenda points of Social Skepticism.
A specific gender, ethnicity, non-violent belief, nation or culture is to blame, and this must be corrected through a tax or removal of their human rights.
Any use of the terms ‘privilege’ or ‘justice’ or other term employed to masque racism or class hatred.
The science was settled before it was ever introduced to any peers, or its victims.
Evidence to the counter is squelched by non-science stakeholders (ie. skepticism, media, universities, pundits, short list journalists, etc.).
Any individual or group who questions, or is skeptical or desires more research around the idea is vilified and given a pejorative moniker.
Celebrity endorsers circuit the same affiliate and lecture network. They wear bowties to imply sophistry of knowledge.
Forums are patrolled by attention seeking and paid trolls, trained to attack persons who express opinions afoul of the social epistemology.
Legal cases challenging the epistemology are squelched and ignored.
Damages caused to families, organizations and persons are tucked away quietly.
No information regarding the negative side of the epistemology is published or drawn attention to in the media.
The stupid people, are always and only the ones who urge caution, or issue warning.
Verbatim message releases echo-chamber through skeptic outlets, blogs and tweets in about a 3 days cycle, and mostly during working hours.
Large institutions, scientific organizations and universities who have a stake in the research remain quiet and defer to activist colleagues.
Those who disagree are associatively condemned as ‘tin foil hat’ or ‘moon landing deniers’ or as being anti-science.
Much talk about ‘the evidence,’ coupled with very little actual presentation of any evidence or knowledge of the subject at all.
The ‘finished science’ is often 25 years old or older and based on very few studies, featuring zero or scant field confirmatory studies.
The lede is buried in media articles, usually a deep seated thesis which is not supported by the science cited in the article, coupled with a headline reiterating the same.
Click bait headlines.
Lots of talk about science, but very little display of actual scientific literacy.
The ‘denier’ moniker is slathered on every person who does not toe the line and talk the talk.

Social Epistemology

/philosophy : pseudo-philosophy/ 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.¹ ²

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.

These strong social epistemological pundits are at their essence scientific crooks. However, they are fully aware that science, inside the key verticals of its application, in general does not accept such contortions of their professional standards. As a result, Social Epistemologists must construct sciencey-looking pathways which tender both the appearance of protocol and method, and establish an Apparent Coherency. This Apparent Coherency is then enforced on society as a whole, with much intimidation and negativity as the final facet of its enforcement.

And as is true to form in a socially reenforced protocol set, the enormous social pressure brought to bear in the form of anger and mocking humor in a public and derisive context, stands as the signature and indeed red flag hallmark of Social Skepticism.