The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

The Lyin’tific Method: The Ten Commandments of Fake Science

The earmarks of bad science are surreptitious in fabric, not easily discerned by media and the public at large. Sadly, as well they are not often easily discerned by scientists themselves. This is why we have ethical skepticism. It’s purpose is not simply to examine ‘extraordinary claims’, but also to examine those claims which masquerade, hidden in plain sight, as if constituting ordinary boring old ‘settled science’.

When you do not want the answer to be known, or you desire a specific answer because of social pressure surrounding an issue, or you are tired of irrational hordes babbling some nonsense about your product ‘harming their family members’ *boo-hoo 😢. Maybe you want to tout the life extending benefits of drinking alcohol, or overinflate death rates so that you can blame it on people you hate – or maybe you are just plain ol’ weary of the requisite attributes of real science. Wherever your Procrustean aspiration may reside, this is the set of guidebook best practices for you and your science organization. Trendy and proven techniques which will allow your organization to get science back on your side, at a fraction of the cost and in a fraction of the time. 👍

Crank up your science communicators and notify them to be at the ready, to plagiarize a whole new set of journalistic propaganda, ‘cuz here comes The Lyin’tific Method!

The Lyin’tific Method: The Ten Commandments of Fake Science

When you have become indignant and up to your rational limit over privileged anti-science believers questioning your virtuous authority and endangering your industry profits (pseudo-necessity), well then it is high time to undertake the following procedure.

1. Select for Intimidation. Appoint an employee who is under financial or career duress, to create a company formed solely to conduct this study under an appearance of impartiality, to then go back and live again comfortably in their career or retirement. Hand them the problem definition, approach, study methodology and scope. Use lots of Bradley Effect vulnerable interns (as data scientists) and persons trying to gain career exposure and impress. Visibly assail any dissent as being ‘anti-science’, the study lead will quickly grasp the implicit study goal – they will execute all this without question. Demonstrably censure or publicly berate a scientist who dissented on a previous study – allow the entire organization/world to see this. Make him become the hate-symbol for your a priori cause.

2. Ask a Question First. Start by asking a ‘one-and-done’, noncritical path & poorly framed, half-assed, sciencey-sounding question, representative of a very minor portion of the risk domain in question and bearing the most likely chance of obtaining a desired result – without any prior basis of observation, necessity, intelligence from stakeholders nor background research. Stress that the scientific method begins with ‘asking a question’. Avoid peer or public input before and after approval of the study design. Never allow stakeholders at risk to help select nor frame the core problem definition, nor the data pulled, nor the methodology/architecture of study.

3. Amass the Right Data. Never seek peer input at the beginning of the scientific process (especially on what data to assemble), only the end. Gather a precipitously large amount of ‘reliable’ data, under a Streetlight Effect, which is highly removed from the data’s origin and stripped of any probative context – such as an administrative bureaucracy database. Screen data from sources which introduce ‘unreliable’ inputs (such as may contain eyewitness, probative, falsifying, disadvantageous anecdotal or stakeholder influenced data) in terms of the core question being asked. Gather more data to dilute a threatening signal, less data to enhance a desired one. Number of records pulled is more important than any particular discriminating attribute entailed in the data. The data volume pulled should be perceptibly massive to laymen and the media. Ensure that the reliable source from which you draw data, bears a risk that threatening observations will accidentally not be collected, through reporting, bureaucracy, process or catalog errors. Treat these absences of data as constituting negative observations.

4. Compartmentalize. Address your data analysts and interns as ‘data scientists’ and your scientists who do not understand data analysis at all, as the ‘study leads’. Ensure that those who do not understand the critical nature of the question being asked (the data scientists) are the only ones who can feed study results to people who exclusively do not grasp how to derive those results in the first place (the study leads). Establish a lexicon of buzzwords which allow those who do not fully understand what is going on (pretty much everyone), to survive in the organization. This is laundering information by means of the dichotomy of compartmented intelligence, and it is critical to everyone being deceived. There should not exist at its end, a single party who understands everything which transpired inside the study. This way your study architecture cannot be betrayed by insiders (especially helpful for step 8).

5. Go Meta-Study Early. Never, ever, ever employ study which is deductive in nature, rather employ study which is only mildly and inductively suggestive (so as to avoid future accusations of fraud or liability) – and of such a nature that it cannot be challenged by any form of direct testing mechanism. Meticulously avoid systematic review, randomized controlled trial, cohort study, case-control study, cross-sectional study, case reports and series, or reports from any stakeholders at risk. Go meta-study early, and use its reputation as the highest form of study, to declare consensus; especially if the body of industry study from which you draw is immature and as early in the maturation of that research as is possible.  Imply idempotency in process of assimilation, but let the data scientists interpret other study results as they (we) wish. Allow them freedom in construction of Oversampling adjustment factors. Hide methodology under which your data scientists derived conclusions from tons of combined statistics derived from disparate studies examining different issues, whose authors were not even contacted in order to determine if their study would apply to your statistical database or not.

6. Shift the Playing Field. Conduct a single statistical study which is ostensibly testing all related conjectures and risks in one felled swoop, in a different country or practice domain from that of the stakeholders asking the irritating question to begin with; moreover, with the wrong age group or a less risky subset thereof, cherry sorted for reliability not probative value, or which is inclusion and exclusion biased to obfuscate or enhance an effect. Bias the questions asked so as to convert negatives into unknowns or vice versa if a negative outcome is desired. If the data shows a disliked signal in aggregate, then split it up until that disappears – conversely if it shows a signal in component sets, combine the data into one large Yule-Simpson effect. Ensure there exists more confidence in the accuracy of the percentage significance in measure (p-value), than of the accuracy/salience of the contained measures themselves.

7. Trashcan Failures to Confirm. Query the data 50 different ways and shades of grey, selecting for the method which tends to produce results which favor your a priori position. Instruct the ‘data scientists’ to throw out all the other data research avenues you took (they don’t care), especially if it could aid in follow-on study which could refute your results. Despite being able to examine the data 1,000 different ways, only examine it in this one way henceforth. Peer review the hell out of any studies which do not produce a desired result. Explain any opposing ideas or studies as being simply a matter of doctors not being trained to recognize things the way your expert data scientists did. If as a result of too much inherent bias in these methods, the data yields an inversion effect – point out the virtuous component implied (our technology not only does not cause the malady in question, but we found in this study that it cures it~!).

8. Prohibit Replication and Follow Up. Craft a study which is very difficult to or cannot be replicated, does not offer any next steps nor serves to open follow-on questions (all legitimate study generates follow-on questions, yours should not), and most importantly, implies that the science is now therefore ‘settled’. Release the ‘data scientists’ back to their native career domains so that they cannot be easily questioned in the future.  Intimidate organizations from continuing your work in any form, or from using the data you have assembled. Never find anything novel (other than a slight surprise over how unexpectedly good you found your product to be), as this might imply that you did not know the answers all along. Never base consensus upon deduction of alternatives, rather upon how many science communicators you can have back your message publicly. Make your data proprietary. View science details as a an activity of relative privation, not any business of the public.

9. Extrapolate and Parrot/Conceal the Analysis. Publish wildly exaggerated & comprehensive claims to falsification of an entire array of ideas and precautionary diligence, extrapolated from your single questionable and inductive statistical method (panduction). Publish the study bearing a title which screams “High risk technology does not cause (a whole spectrum of maladies) whatsoever” – do not capitalize the title as that will appear more journaly and sciencey and edgy and rebellious and reserved and professorial. Then repeat exactly this extraordinarily broad-scope and highly scientific syllogism twice in the study abstract, first in baseless declarative form and finally in shocked revelatory and conclusive form, as if there was some doubt about the outcome of the effort (ahem…). Never mind that simply repeating the title of the study twice, as constituting the entire abstract is piss poor protocol – no one will care. Denialists of such strong statements of science will find it very difficult to gain any voice thereafter. Task science journalists to craft 39 ‘research articles’ derived from your one-and-done study; deem that now 40 studies. Place the 40 ‘studies’, both pdf and charts (but not any data), behind a registration approval and $40-per-study paywall. Do this over and over until you have achieved a number of studies and research articles which might fancifully be round-able up to ‘1,000’ (say 450 or so ~ see reason below). Declare Consensus.

10. Enlist Aid of SSkeptics and Science Communicators. Enlist the services of a public promotion for-hire gang, to push-infiltrate your study into society and media, to virtue signal about your agenda and attack those (especially the careers of wayward scientists) who dissent.  Have members make final declarative claims in one liner form “A thousand studies show that high risk technology does not cause anything!” ~ a claim which they could only make if someone had actually paid the $40,000 necessary in actually accessing the ‘thousand studies’. That way the general public cannot possibly be educated in any sufficient fashion necessary to refute the blanket apothegm. This is important: make sure the gang is disconnected from your organization (no liability imparted from these exaggerated claims nor any inchoate suggested dark activities *wink wink), and moreover, who are motivated by some social virtue cause such that they are stupid enough that you do not actually have to pay them.

The organizations who manage to pull this feat off, have simultaneously claimed completed science in a single half-assed study, contended consensus, energized their sycophancy and exonerated themselves from future liability – all in one study. To the media, this might look like science. But to a life-long researcher, it is simply a big masquerade. It is pseudo-science in the least; and at its worst constitutes criminal felony and assault against humanity. It is malice and oppression, in legal terms (see Dewayne Johnson vs Monsanto Company)

The discerning ethical skeptic bears this in mind and uses this understanding to discern the sincere from the poser, and real groundbreaking study from commonplace surreptitiously bad science.

epoché vanguards gnosis


How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “The Lyin’tific Method: The Ten Commandments of Fake Science” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 3 Sep 2018; Web,

September 3, 2018 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Institutional Mandates, Social Disdain | , | Leave a comment

Lies of Which I Disabused Myself Along the Way

At the basis of The Lie, is the contention that one only needs to seek professional medical advice when one is sick or something hurts. This precludes the role of any medical profession involving health, nutrition and prevention. This is a serious broach of ethics and scientific acumen on the part of social skepticism. It is just plain institutional-stupid. The reality is that we erroneously assume our bodies to be simple systems – just like a car. And the sadder truth is that current medical science has taught us to treat our cars better than we do our own bodies.

Mysteries Are Almost Always Woven of Bad Assumption Fabric

seal run and swimI run, typically 3 to 4 times a week, and have for most of the last 12 years, as well as most of my life in fact. I consume 1700 – 2200 calories per day and track my food and nutrition measures religiously. I have followed this protocol over the most recent decade of my life.  Every aspect of my life is imbued with the circumspect, precise and skeptical approaches of science. I study each facet of my existence and take no assumptions for granted. Data and observation logs abound everywhere. I smile when people offer me common or ‘evidence based’ wisdom on matters which I directly study; driving some of my work associates (not lab associates) crazy through my habitual approach to each issue via the scientific method. I focus more instead on direct observation and results-based study. ‘Evidence’ as it turns out, often constitutes simply semi-objective propaganda – and the wise ethical skeptic understands this. This is a substantial reason for my personal success in life.

When one possesses the means to directly test common wisdom – one should always do so.

My times for a 5K in cross country in high school ranged from 17:10 to 20:15 depending upon how far into the season we were and how difficult the course was. Flat course runs through garlic country were easy, hilly runs through pine coast country were not as easy. I barely finished in the top 5 on my cross country team my senior year, finally lettering in a sport to which I had dedicated my fall semesters for 3 years. But despite being co-captain of my swim team each summer, lifeguarding, riding bicycle to and from wrestling practice in winter, and participating in track & field in the spring, I just could not seem to generate the results I sought in terms of field competition in each sport. I carried more weight than was optimal for these high school sports.

I recall once complaining to my cross country coach, about this inability to produce results from my training commensurate with my buddies on the cross country team. He smiled and stated “K, you weigh 180 lbs man. All these guys who finish in the top 5 each year, on average weigh 135-145 lbs. I tell you what, tomorrow I will strap a 40 lb weight pack to each of them and we’ll do a 10 K practice. Then we will see who is indeed getting results from their training.” I laughed and swallowed the partially understood medicine, but never forgot it.

Later in life this proved to be accurate. When assaulting armed Marine insurgents in US Navy summer training, swimming 1/3 mile after jumping from a zodiac, diving 100 ft under water holding my breath, followed by a run up a hill carrying a 40 lb gear loadout and my M16 – I was able to make it across a 2 mile long sand-field and up the 400 ft foliage hill well before my fire team, surprising the flanked insurgents before they could even ready their weapons, substantially mitigating their defense. A specialist always does well at his or her specialty. But life is not a specialty, it demands a personal rounding and an ability to distinguish and focus on the goal at hand. An ability to distinguish propaganda from results.  Life is never about attaining the best in one specific statistic or technique – rather preparing for the overall battle. What challenges arise from that battle (life), no one can predict – among goals which are often hard to discern and measure.

Health is One Such Multifaceted Battle

One such challenge of life is the difficulty of managing body mass inside the context of metabolic disorders stemming from Endocrine-Immune-Biome Disruption (EIBD) – from toxins concealed inside our foods, along with the low nutrition level of our mega-industry sourced Western diet. For me, keeping trim for presentations and the example to be portrayed by a CEO, was a very daunting process. One which I studied with the same passion, direct engagement and objectivity I exhibit in every other facet of my life.

To keep trim, I cannot eat Western food, I cannot consume the way my associates and friends consume, I cannot eat glyphosate bearing foods, I cannot eat Western grains/wheats/corn/canola/soy/alfalfa, I cannot eat most meats, I must supplement my diet with specific protein sources, high levels of sublingual b-vitamins, vinegar with the mother, raw garlic, pro-biotics, pre-biotics and stomach enzymes. I must workout regularly and cannot consume anywhere near the Western prescriptive 2700 calories a day.

These are the things I have learned through hard study, record keeping, practice, trial and error and discipline. I find the smug platitudes about diet from social skeptics to be not only Pollyanna, but malevolent towards persons like me.

Below you will find five lies I disabused myself of along this journey. Lies which stand as ‘evidence based’ common wisdom, promoted by people who have never been there, never done that, never understood the background principles, never conducted any direct observation or sensitivity testing and never attained any results in the matter from a personal perspective, whatsoever.

The lies of social skepticism. Fake knowledge which arises from Diagnostician’s Error.

Lies About Diet and Health – Of Which I Disabused Myself Along the Way

1.  Obesity Arises from Eating too Much and Lack of Exercise

obesity rises but overweight does notExample of The Lie:  “An obese friend of mine commented on how well his new diet was going, as he absentmindedly devoured an entire low-carb cheesecake while happily engaged in his sedentary pastime. …There’s plenty of blame to go around for what is being called the 21st century pandemic of obesity. The western lifestyle is always the first target of blame, for good reason. Americans eat too much and exercise too little.”  (

The Truth:  Obesity is a symptom of Endocrine-Immune-Biome Disruption (EIBD).  ‘Overweight’ is caused by eating too much and moving too little, and can be corrected through lifestyle changes – obesity cannot be corrected through such changes, and requires a totally different strategy.

While some associated symptoms may ease, obesity is neither cured nor resolved by one simply losing weight.

Therefore they cannot, a fortiori, be caused by the same mechanisms, nor in any way shape or form, be the same disease. We do not deem Alzheimer’s and Dementia, one disease called ‘Crazy-Forgetfulism,’ for this very same reason – they are not caused by the same thing, even though their symptoms might appear similar to the uninitiated. This is a central tenet of epidemiology. One we ignore in the case of obesity through its obfuscation by fake medicine, social messages and social skepticism. Social skeptics enjoy the leverage and condemnation they can deliver through an amalgamation of these disorders into one category of simplest explanation judgement. A judgement which serves to defer responsibility from their clients, and onto the very victims of their clients.

Obesity is an epidemic, among certain genetic profiles which are susceptible to toxins concealed in our average Western Diet. It is not simply an extreme version of being overweight, and the statistics show this (see graphic to the right from the CDC). The Lie, exhibited most effectively inside its related quote above, courtesy of The Emperor Himself, Steven Novella can be summed up in this:

It is the concealing of these toxins (pesticides, deleterious DNA proteins, hormones), the commensurate dilution of our much needed nutrient from our food in lieu of fast growth/higher calorie plant matter, coupled with push-promulgated erroneous common wisdom, which is the bad practice and assumption set residing at the core of the modern obesity pandemic.


/philosophy : pseudoscience : malfeasance/ : the study of the patterns and effects of health & disease conditions in defined populations; while yet at the same time meticulously avoiding study of the cause of those same diseases or conditions.

2.  Excessive Body Mass Index Causes Disease

Example of The Lie:  “People who are [high BMI] are at increased risk for many diseases and health conditions.”  (

The Truth:  Obesity is a symptom of Endocrine-Immune-Biome Disruption (EIBD).  The following co-morbidities begin BEFORE a person becomes obese, and are caused by the same EIBD factors which cause the obesity commensurate with or after the morbidity factor itself has already begun in a person’s body. In other words, they are not ‘at risk’ for them, rather they most often already have these maladies. It is the absence of medical intervention early on, which prevents us from regularly observing this co-morbidity. (list generally from the same resource (CDC) as cited in ‘The Lie’ above).

High blood pressure (Hypertension)
High LDL cholesterol, low HDL cholesterol, or high levels of triglycerides (Dyslipidemia), liver dysfunction
Type 2 diabetes, metabolic disorders
Coronary heart disease
Nutritional deficiencies (micronutrients, b-vitamins, minor proteins)
Osteoarthritis (a breakdown of cartilage and bone within a joint)
Sleep apnea, asthma, allergies and breathing problems
Chronic inflammation (bodywide) and increased oxidative stress
Some cancers (endometrial, breast, colon, kidney, gallbladder, and liver)
Low quality of life
Mental illness such as clinical depression, anxiety, and other mental disorders
Body pain and difficulty with physical functioning (Intestinal disorders, Lupus, Fibromyalgia, CFS, Endocrine Disorders)

These conditions are not caused by body mass – they are caused by the SAME THING which causes the excessive body mass to begin with. By not looking for this single cause, we are committing criminal pseudoscience.

3.  You Get All the Nutrition You Need from a Healthy Typical Western Diet

Example of The Lie: “…if you live in a Western industrialized nation you probably have adequate nutrition.” (

The Truth:  This is a most serious piece of bullshit common wisdom promulgated without any evidence, by social skeptics. Not only is our modern western diet serving to destroy the mechanisms which protect the EIBD susceptible body, but as well our modern western diet cannot provide the nutrition a person (with EIBD at least) needs. Supplementation is mandatory: in particular – B vitamins, Micronutrients and a complete array of all 19 human amino acids.

Inside social skepticism today, all you have to contend is that supplements are evil, and the Cabal will grant you immediate voice in publication.

But to a person who has done actual study, this is a mistake of malfeasance on the part of people overconfident in their rational and skeptical abilities. Malevolent cluelessness even worse than simply pseudoscience.

The clear results based understanding – supplementation is essential to modern western health – one simply cannot mathematically intake a sufficient b-vitamin and full protein array by means of a 2700 calorie per day modern diet. It is impossible.

The Best Foods and Still Overeat


4.  Doctors are the Authority About Managing Health and Preventing Disease

Example of The Lie: “…in order to be a primary care physician one ought to have the education and training of a primary care physician. Because, after all, patients (or, at least, naïve patients) aren’t going to divide themselves neatly into two lines based on the seriousness of their condition, one going into the M.D. PCP’s office and one going into the N.D. PCP’s office.” (

The Truth:  At the basis of the Lie, is the contention that one only needs to seek professional medical advice when one is sick or something hurts. This precludes the role of any medical profession involving health, nutrition and prevention. This is a serious broach of ethics and scientific acumen. It is just plain institutional-stupid. We need a professional health discipline which focuses on prevention, nutrition and habits, period. The idiots at Science Based Medicine have the audacity to attempt to preclude via legislation such an entity from ever existing – and the tools of nutrition from being made available – when these resources indeed reside at the core of human health.

If our doctors are going to be over-booked under-paid body repair mechanics – then we need medical resources which help us stay healthy – not just repair mistakes and maladies. Higher medical care provider costs and longer appointment wait times are not an indication of a healthy nation in the least. They stand as indicators that we are failing under the burden of false medical science.

Inside the context of EIBD, 90% of health and medicine resides in practices of prevention, nutrition and personal discipline. These are not things today’s primary care physician can help you with. By the time you are seeking help for an EIBD related malady in point 2 above, it is often too late. Of the malady challenges I have solved in my life, here is the record of each contributing entity:

Primary Care Physician:   2 of 11 maladies (.182)

Alternative Care Professional:   4 of 11 maladies (.366)

Me:  5 of 11 maladies (.455)

And here is the key to this: had I not done the research, threw out the baloney enforced by Science Based Medicine, these maladies solved by Alternative Medicine and by me, would have turned into more grave body injury and sickness to be handled by my PCP doctor. Of the two things my PCP handled, BOTH were injuries sustained from bad food impacting my health, during a time where I was not aware of this impact. We cannot continue with the idea that a PCP is our first contact regarding health. This current profit-focused and clueless patient approach to health is not working. It is the health approach of malevolent morons. Our emphasis needs to be on our most effective means of promoting good health (bullets 2 and 3 above). That more than anything will help alleviate the burgeoning costs of medical care.

5.  The Endocrine-Immune-Biome System is a Simple Machine which is Easily Managed & Corrected through Doctor Visits

Example of the Lie: “Standard treatment for hypothyroidism involves daily use of the synthetic thyroid hormone levothyroxine (T4).” (

The Truth: The thyroid (along with a couple other EIBD flags) is the canary in the cage, for Endocrine-Immune-Biome Disruption (EIBD). If you have low thyroid output, your body is not simply having one piece of its equipment malfunction (as if it were a fuel injector circuit or something). This is not a case of ‘one statistic-one fix’ diagnosis and treament. The simple truth is, that once you are diagnosed with hypothyroidism, you are about to embark on a long journey of endocrine, weight, metabolic, immune system, well being and feeling, health and microbiome management.  You have EIBD and your doctor, your simpleton science medical fakers, don’t know it.

Why Are So Many People Getting Thyroid Disease?

If you had the right resources, those who would advise you on health maintenance and disease prevention, after you show up with a TSH measure of 3 milli-international units per liter or higher, THEN we would be practicing medicine. The current practice resembles a poorly administered version of auto mechanics for the body. It is akin to coming into your auto mechanic for lessons on how to drive.

The reality is that we assume our bodies to be simple systems – just like a car. And the sadder truth is that current medical science has taught us to treat our cars better than we do our bodies. Social Skepticism would have it no other way, because that is what enriches their sponsors and their clients.

epoché vanguards gnosis

July 8, 2016 Posted by | Institutional Mandates | , , , | Leave a comment

Promotification Pseudoscience

Want to push a scientific looking agenda, but hate doing real science? Promotification is the way to pull it off, and look like a scientist in the mean time.
How to squelch a topic or subject you do not like, extend a lab contract, or produce favorable results, while all the time looking all “sciencey.”
Promotification – One or a series of predictive experiments touted as scientific, yet employed in such a fashion as to mislead. Deception or incompetence wherein only predictive testing methodology was undertaken in a hypothesis reduction hierarchy when more effective falsification pathways or current evidence were readily available, but were ignored. 
The false induction pseudoscience practice of only developing, or the forcing the sponsor of an idea/set of observations, as a first priority to only fully develop, evidence in support of or a series of predictive-only tests which merely serve to confirm conventional or conforming explanations of that data in question. 
Promotification suffers from the Penultimate Set Fallacy, the weakness that it affords no disciplined falsification comparatives under Developmental Science Methodology, fails the Popper Demarcation litmus, assumes that there is no aggregate or other data on the subject, enforces a priori testing hierarchies in absence of knowing what question to ask, and refuses to acknowledge differing research protocols under Discovery Science Methodology.

Promotification Pseudoscience, The Seven Forms of Lab and Scientific Promotional Fraud

I.     sskepticism is scientific fraudPerforming the exact same experiment, 150 times over, and getting the same result each time, and billing that as “Numerous Scientific Studies.”

Example:  Glyphosate/GM food 90 Day Rat Death studies, the same test run 65 times and being declared as “numerous scientific studies.”

II.   Performing the most expensive medical tests, studies or experiments as a first priority, so as to maximize billable client or patient revenue, when cheaper falsification tests were readily available and were ignored. Choosing to test highly unlikely scenarios as a first priority in testing so as to maximize the billable testing or work prior to finding the most likely solution as a last step.

Example: Conducting a colonoscopy search for cancer as the first step of investigation for every patient who walks in the door of a doctor’s office complaining of intestinal pain – in absence of seeking out other symptoms, patient history and patient feedback about more common maladies.

III.   Performing predictive tests to find evidence in support of a favored theory, when falsification tests of opposing or favored theories, and/or a large body of falsifying evidence, were readily available, but were ignored.

Example: Conducting predictive studies in purported haunted locations, to show that EVP phenomena could possibly in some cases be pareidolia, when case examples of clear EVP’s demonstrably shown as actual voices already existed, and were being recorded in the next room at the very same time.***

IV.  Performing patchwork predictive analyses with assumptions in the gaps that were formulated in advance with those tests outcomes already in mind.

Example:  Global Warming arguments both pro and con.***

V.   Selecting contrived testing pathways or hypothesis sets or reduction hierarchies, which serve only to confirm a favored outcome.

Example:  Testing for increases in inflation or unemployment by only examining fully understood sectors/factors which will produce known outcomes.

VI.    Performing predictive experiments to support a case of plausible deniability or conformance as POSSIBLE, and terminating the scientific method there.

Example:  Testing to observe if a bear can walk on two legs, in order to arguably preclude through plausible deniability any further scientific investigation regarding tens of thousands of bigfoot sightings.***

VII.   Performing predictive experiments in such a fashion so as to maximize the total duration involved in a study or the work content and expense billed to a contract.

Example: Heartburn industry promoting predictive studies around a full array of 1000 environmental factors and their possible contribution to stomach ulcers, in an effort to prolong research and protect prescription heartburn remedies from being held to account regarding studies, already readily testable, which would falsify this prolonged pathway in one simple step, through H. Pylori research.

*** I hold no conclusions on these subjects, and only use them here as examples wherein I have observed the tradecraft of corruption and social control – a subject in which I do bear professional skills at advising upon and countering.

April 1, 2014 Posted by | Deskeption | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: