The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

Intuitionism: Inference versus Impulse

Ethical Skepticism maintains a healthy respect for Inductive and Deductive epistemological inference methods. However the philosophy itself, upon which these logical inference methods are based, stems from sources which cannot be fully defined as epistemological in the first place – save for the instance wherein we are able to test each derived tenet’s mettle through real world application. An additional species of inference exists inside philosophy: that of Ethical Intuitionism. Unlike Impulse Inference, Ethical Intuitionism derives its based development practices from necessity and skilled instinct, not doctrine nor coerced conviction. It focuses primarily on the goals of value, clarity, risk, and probability as paramount above any particular conclusion alone.
Much of impulse originates through emotional damage and fear. But faith and metaphysical selection may still be ethical forms of inference exercised apart from such vulnerability.

Now we just completed a blog about three types of logical inference. To be clear, these three species of logical inference are all logic based forms of reason (see the left side of the chart to the right). There exist as well several other forms of inference. For instance, in mathematics we have the three disciplines of modeling & simulation, mathematical derivation itself and computation (the basis of Artificial Intelligence). There is however another and much more common (but often decried and denied) genre of inference methods. In order to introduce this form of inference we should take a quick look again at the three common rational forms which were developed in our last blog (see The Three Types of Reason).

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.1

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 combined with its ability to predict outcomes.2

Deductive Reason

/Reductive Inference/ : is the process of reasoning by reduction in complexity, from one or more statements (premises) to reach a final, logically certain conclusion. This includes the instance where the elimination of alternatives (negative premises) forces one to conclude the only remaining answer.3


Our fourth form of inference is mathematics itself. However, let’s set that aside for now and focus on the next successive block after Derivation in the chart above, that of Intuitionism. Intuitionism involves a combination of both abductive and inductive pre-mindset, a mathematician’s discipline, combined with a philosopher’s license to base conjecture of principle. I say mindsets, because deeming this form of inference a logical method is not a certainty. This form of inference can sometimes follow a method of logic, but often does not. It involves a set of hunch-based logics known collectively as Intuitionism.


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

Reason Based (Philosophy and Mathematics)

Ethical Intuitionism – a set of ideas that our intuitive awareness of value, or intuitive knowledge of clear evaluative facts and our ability to sense and measure plausibility, risk and probability, form the foundation of our ethical knowledge and knowledge development processes. This form of inference derives its basis from a solid background in inductive and deductive training and experience; however does not demand that every inference be based upon solely sources, epistemology or belief. Since philosophy derives (by necessity) many times from relatively intuition based inferences – it is rightfully thought of as a type of Ethical Intuitionism. It’s quality is proved out through the success of the science which employs methods adhering to its tenets.4 5

Mathematical/Physical Intuitionism – an approach wherein mathematics (or alternately physics as well) is considered to be purely the result of the constructive mental activity of humans rather than inferred through our discovery of fundamental principles claimed to exist in a referenceless, objective and a priori reality. That is, logic and mathematics are not considered analytic activities wherein deep properties of objective reality are revealed; rather, are instead considered the application of internally consistent methods used to realize more complex mental constructs, regardless of their possible independent existence in an objective reality.6 7

Impulse (pathos)

Intuitionism (Metaphysical Selection) – the philosophical theory that basic truths can be derived or are always known intuitively. The opposite of empirical and epistemological inference methods, often involving some degree of teleology. The philosophical basis of the idea that existence, cause, effect, purpose, being, origination of existence, theology or lack thereof, can all be derived through the foundationalism about moral knowledge: the view that some moral truths or views about god, existence, cause and purpose can be known non-inferentially (i.e., known without one needing to infer them from other sources, epistemology or beliefs). It revolves around three principles:

1.  Objective moral truths do exist (and for some, objective moral and causal Agents do exist)

2.  Fundamental moral truths (and moral and causal agents) have no precedent, nor can they be broken down into simpler or predicate components (this is parallel to the position of Philosophy – however extends to conclusions, rather than simply practices and disciplines)

3.  The belief that human beings are granted, can freely derive or have a past innate memory of such moral truths (and moral or causal agents).8

This is a form of metaphysical selection (a belief) – rather than a derivation which is achieved at the end of a process of logical/mathematical calculus or philosophical development of practice standards. A danger resides in conflating the pathos based intuitionism of belief, with the reason based intuitionism of mathematics and ethics.


When one elects to undertake a pathway involving ontological or impulse intuitionism, one should be honest and understand that this process of metaphysical selection (belief) – stands distinct from any form of mathematical derivation or intuitionism, ethical intuitionism, philosophy, abduction, induction or deduction. When exercised sincerely, and in this circumspect light of understanding – the practitioner is executing a principle called faith.  Faith is the condition wherein no pretense is offered by the claimant as to proof, evidence, logic, science, epistemology, right, wrong, authority, etc. The claimant simply and transparently makes it clear that they have exercised a metaphysical selection. It fits their gut. This is why faith is considered a more virtuous form of pathos and ontological intuition.

The telltale earmarks which serve to distinguish Religious Doctrine from Faith are the urgency, one way communication and coercion typically involved.

Impulse Inference (Religious Doctrine and Dogma)

This is a twisted and sick-minded form of metaphysical selection or faith. The only practice set which operates under a masquerade in this set of inference species and genres, is the practice of religious assumption, doctrine and dogma. This of course includes the habits of those who practice social skepticism. These religions will attempt to pass their doctrines as species of logical inference – through a process known as apologetics. This is a type of pathology wherein the participant very desperately wants to seek validation for a taught or personally adopted set of metaphysical conclusions. This is not truly an actual form of inference, however because of its peer status as an exception to the other genres and forms, it is depicted on the chart alongside all the forms of legitimate inference (including metaphysical selection and faith) which it pretends to be. The key clarifying aspect of this species of inference, is that it is in at least part based upon forms of coercion, fear and duty.

Of the three forms of Intuitionism above however – only Ethical Intuitionism provides for the distinct possibility to inductively or deductively test each assumption as to how it performs ‘in real life’. Mathematics intuition claims can be independently derived in proof, but such pathways inevitably progress into realms where definition uncertainty begins to provide for shaky ground in terms of final certainty (not to mention utility); for instance, in the case of the dispute over infinity as an existential or only practical incremental concept.9

Ethical Intuitionism, because of its philosophical basis – and focus on clarity, value, risk and probability over any specific conclusions, is often mistaken for sophistry by those unfamiliar with skepticism or who are highly committed to an abductive or impulse intuition based set of answers. 

The willingness to tolerate an unknown – the staunch defense of the methods of science against the twisted logic of the agenda laden poser – these standards serve to aggravate and inflame the religious impulse minded. The religious rarely ever ‘get’ Ethical Intuitionism. After all, its very core philosophy is anathema to religion – not necessarily metaphysical selection or faith – but religion. However, pointing this out rarely does any good.

As an ethical skeptic, one should just chuckle at such ignorance and move on; hoping that some day the accuser will see the light of their own bullheadedness.

epoché vanguards gnosis

July 8, 2017 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism | , , , , | Leave a comment

The Ethical Skeptic Statement of Faith

Epoché vanguards gnosis. I assume nothing and expect to be amazed. This is my faith.

There exist two extremes of personal cosmology which I reject.

Ethical Skeptic Faith

When enforced on me as a child, was a destructive lie which took years to shed through education, integrity, rational thinking, fellowship, a global deep life experience and a smarter circumspect view about man and our elegant universe. This model of god has failed, because the behavior which is rewarded as part of the innate ethical fabric and design (per hoc aditum) of this realm include:

Surreptitious Greed
Licensed Violence
Systemic Exploitation
Machiavellian Attainment
Skilled Selfishness
Concealed Dishonesty
Veiled Hatred

Overarching Goal: Suffering on Unimaginable Scale

One is not rewarded in this realm through simply being a bad person; rather by being exceptionally skilled at one single thing, or more commonly, being highly skilled at being a bad person. In my life, I have abjectly refused to participate in such activity, and it has cost me dearly – to the point of understanding that ethical natures are to be punished in this realm. Postured virtue, a veneer concealing the thoroughly corrupt soul is the means to success in this realm. Pro athletes, actors and musicians are foisted as models of ‘if your really put your mind to it, you can…’ – but such characters are few and far between in reality and are appointed as celebrity example by the Machiavelli Elite as a form of deception and wishful thinking. The above list of more common dark realities are woven into this universe’s very inception and nature. Were this a ‘design’, then the designer could not possibly posses the ethical characteristics assumed/taught by monotheists at all. One eventually finds that the gleeful thirst for blood and suffering which is the ethic of this universe, stands deductively incompatible with the imposed model of a monotheistic, all powerful, benevolent, all knowing, all caring creator. This is falsification in its level of inferential merit. But it takes an adult mind in order to grasp this, not a child mind. And no, man did not cause this to happen in a Fall event – this is the way our DNA was crafted from day one.

     Metaphysical Naturalism

The temptation exists therefore, when faced with this irreconcilable view of god verus our abject reality, to jump from one extreme to the other. Things be bad, therefore nihilism. This is simply a coward’s way out, a religion of negative reactance on the part of the shallow and now fearful and closed mind.

When metaphysical naturalism is offered to me as the only alternative to Abrahamism, this becomes a bifurcation fallacy;

When I am told there exists enough epistemological evidence upon which to select it, this becomes a false dilemma;

When it starts instructing me as to a whole list of things which do not exist; and this is enforced on society, government, in my career, in the media, and in my academic progression, it becomes Nihilism;

When it is bolstered by pep rallies, negative reactance to one’s old religion, and through surrounding one’s self with angry like-minded fellows, it becomes every bit an abusive religion as is Abrahamism;

When it is promoted as “atheism” or “skepticism” or “free thinking” or as supporting a single set of political views

…it becomes a lie.

My research, and my review of the research of others, has led me to conclude that both Abrahamism and Metaphysical Naturalism are false. At a certain point, the integrity of philosophy will dictate that it must yield to evidence. Those who pretend the evidence does not exist, remain lost in their own weakened minds. However, I await more true research before choosing to conclude anything further. I object when either group seeks to control the evidence, means, access, method, funding, attention, work, conclusions and visibility of all research which allows me to improve my understanding of our realm. This knowledge is neither the property nor propriety of any government or group. I object when my peers seek to enforce either religion on me, society, careers, media, social discourse, or government. When this happens, I will speak up.

Because of the imperious insistence of Monotheism and Nihilism therefore, I have established boundary parameters to that which is introduced to me as plausible cosmology:

The Ethical Skeptic’s Law of Advanced Intelligence (Ignosticism)

I.  Principle of Indistinguishability (vertical)

/philosophy : science : boundary conditions : limits for claims/ : any sufficiently advanced act of benevolence is indistinguishable from either malevolence or chance.

This may well be a hell of sorts in which we live, but that does not preclude the idea that it is not being done for a reason, nor that it exists for no reason.

II.  Neti’s Razor (horizontal)

/philosophy : existentialism : boundary condition/ : one cannot produce evidence from a finite deterministic domain, sufficient to derive a conclusion that nothing aside from that domain therefore exists.

The principle which serves to cut secular 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). Therefore, you are wholly unqualified to instruct me that this realm is the only realm which exists, and efforts to do so constitute a religious activity. So, nihilism fails the test of epistemology and consequently falls into a belief domain, as opposed to a scientific one. More precisely, we are restricted in our ability to deduce that there is no such thing as an outside intelligence, nor that our domain is the sole domain which exists, nor that it is influenced by any outside agency. They relate to the structure of theory which comprises: element, model and proof accordingly.

1.  A comprehensively deterministic system, cannot introduce an element solely in and of its inner workings, which is innately nondeterministic. Free Will Intelligence must arrive from the outside of a comprehensively deterministic system.

2.  A comprehensively deterministic system, cannot serve as the substrate solely in and of its inner workings, for a model which completely describes or predicts its function. That is, such a system on its own, is wholly unable to deductively identify the presence of non-deterministic sets or influences.

3.  A terminally or inceptionally truncated and/or finite and comprehensively deterministic system, cannot introduce a proof solely by means in and of its inner workings, which excludes the possibility of all other systems or sets.

III.  I Am that I Am (horizontal)

/philosophy : existentialism : boundary condition/ : that which possesses the unique ability to be able to define itself, renders all other entities disqualified in such expertise. There is no such thing as an expert in god.

The principle which serves to cut theism as a form of belief, distinct from all other forms of belief as either philosophy or religion. From the Torah idiom, I Am (I Am that I Am or in Sanskrit, Aham Bramsmi).  Therefore, if god existed, you are unqualified to tell me about it. So, theism falls into a lack of allow-for domain.

IV.  Non-Existence Definition (vertical)

/philosophy : science : skepticism : elements of attributes/definition/ : six questions form the basis of a definition: What, Where, When, How, Why, Who. The answers to this set of six questions still form an expert definition of attributes, even if the answer to all six is ’empty set’.

Therefore, when one applies the ethics of skepticism – one cannot formulate a definition which is specified as ’empty set’, without due empirical underpinning, a theory possessing a testable mechanism and a consilience of supporting research.  We have none of this, and can make no claims to ‘non-existence’ expertise in god.

We do not yet understand enough, as men, to substantiate these grandiose fatalistic claims as to the nature of our universe and our existence. Epoché vanguards gnosis. I assume nothing and expect to be amazed. This is my faith.

epoché vanguards gnosis


How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “The Ethical Skeptic Statement of Faith” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 20 Sep 2014; Web,

September 20, 2014 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism | , , | 4 Comments

Faith is Not Pseudoscience

“The humble cherishing of hope, is not a deceptive act.” – TES

Daily Diceascope Reading:  Simply roll two dice and observe your daily forecast by the numerical total you roll.  You will find it uncanny how accurate are the forecasts for your day.

As ridiculous as this contrivance of personal folly is, its belief set does not necessarily constitute a pseudoscience.

SSkeptics commonly deride a personal faith by relegating such beliefs to holding the status of a pseudoscience.  This stems from their malicious mis-definition of pseudoscience as being a ‘set of beliefs’ (see What is Pseudoscience?) and not the ethical definition of pseudoscience being ‘an errant action.’  Science is a method, foremost, and while the footprint of what constitutes ‘science’ may certainly encompass those tenets which have been vetted by the scientific method, this does not mean that those tenets which are not vetted by the scientific method now then default to the status of anti-science or pseudoscience; as these constructs may have simply not been tested.  SSkeptics thrive in a culture of shades-of-gray context and definition dancing. This particular sleight-of-hand shift is a core teaching of SSkepticisim.

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

Pseudoscience – The deceptive act of claiming to use or represent the Scientific Method or Science in attaining conclusions, when in fact such contentions are false.

This targeting of Faith, as being a pseudoscience originates from an inner anger towards people of faith; often stemming from a past hurt or deception.  This hurt and deception is a set of offense of which I am totally familiar.  I understand the reaction, the crafting of words so that one can condemn practitioners of Faith onto the dust-pile of those who practice the deception of pseudoscience.  But in the immortal words of Nietzsche, ones which The Ethical Skeptic heeds, “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster himself. And if you gaze long enough into the abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”  Take care ethical skeptic that you do not over-reach with the arrogance of personal bias nor the false presumption that you do not hold personal religious beliefs. In doing so you might just impart a negative net gain on the world, in your fervent desire to correct a wrong.

If you encounter a person pretending to represent science, or promoting a certain set of tenets as proved by the scientific method or pretending to conduct science, when in fact none of this is true; by all means – declare pseudoscience.  But if you extend your reach to include people humbly cherishing hope, fully cognizant of its ironic and potential irrationality, you have undertaken an unethical activity.  If you tell people who have made an observation which you do not like, that they are undertaking pseudoscience, when they are claiming nothing – only relating a personal account, then YOU have had the abyss gaze back into you and have become the monster.  The ethical skeptic first examines himself (see A New Ethic).

Above I have cited a faith called Diceascope Reading.  One which I personally do not hold.  As ridiculous as this faith is, it is NOT pseudoscience, unless the practitioners begin to claim that the elemental methods of statistics, research, analysis, predictive and falsification hierarchies have proved or underpinned their personal belief set as valid.  In other words, what SSkeptics do with THEIR belief set, in an effort to pass off their religion as proved by science, is indeed to practice pseudoscience. One can be skeptical here, but remain ethical nonetheless – even in the face of credulous ridiculousness.

January 5, 2013 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism, Social Disdain | , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: