The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

Garbage Skepticism: The Definition

The role of those who identify as ‘skeptic’ is to act in lieu of science in tendering and rigorously and openly enforcing provisional personally preferred conclusions and beliefs. Bullshit.

The following is an amateurish and shallow attempt at defining skepticism, on the part of technician-masquerading-as-science-expert-extraordinare, the Emperor himself, Steven Novella. It is actually a concise framing of methodical cynicism all adorned in its glorified ¡fact! dress, hoping that those who are not familiar with philosophy, nor logical inference, nor possessing of a skeptical eye, nor having participated in any actual scientific discovery, will fall for its chicanery.

The following definition, is brought to you by the man who does not appear to know what a p-value is, cannot consistently define correlation and habitually mis-frames the methods of science so as to favor and dis-favor subjects according to his club’s likes and dislikes (under the guise of ‘scientific’ reason). But we take his word on skepticism, in exemplary credulousness. Yes, celebrity ‘skeptic’ Steven Novella, pretty much sums up the whole fake skepticism movement below. His preferred definition’s codification of abductive logical inference, as it contrasts with ethical (scientific) skepticism, follows thereafter.

Novellas New ClothesA skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient, and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own.

A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves.

Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion..

When Knowledge is Not Necessarily the Goal: Use Preferential Abduction

Deduction being the most robust form of inference available to the researcher, the provisional methods of inference – and the fact that inference is forced prematurely to begin with – are among the principal four errors which are plied by the fake skeptic – and inside the definition framed above by Steven Novella.

Error 1.  Force to conclusion – when one may not be warranted.

Error 2.   Skepticism is never to be employed by a casual thinker in lieu of science – it is a discipline of the mind when one prepares to conduct actual science (not pretend science).

Error 3. Deescalate a deductive or inductive challenge to abductive diagnostic inference – when this is an erroneous approach.

Error 4.  Failure to recognize the negative whipsaw effect of forced, ideologue-driven, provisional or diagnostic abduction inferences on the deontological process of knowledge development (red accrued error curve to the right).

Researcher beware, as the Novella definition above implies abduction as the method of skepticism. Choosing a lower order of logical inference such as abduction can be a method by which one avoids challenging answers, yet still tenders the appearance of conducting science. We start first with a favorite trick of social skeptics – i.e. employing abductive reason in instance where deductive discipline or inductive study are warranted (see Diagnostician’s Error). A second trick can involve the appearance of science through the intensive focus on one approach at the purposeful expense of necessary and critical alternatives (see The Omega Hypothesis). One can dress up in an abductive robe and tender an affectation of science – but an ethical skeptic is armed to know otherwise.

Methodical Deescalation

/philosophy : pseudoscience : inadequate inference method/ : employing abductive inference in lieu of inductive inference when inductive inference could have, and under the scientific method should have, been employed. In similar fashion employing inductive inference in lieu of deductive inference when deductive inference could have, and under the scientific method should have, been employed.

A skeptic

First, an authentic skeptic does not identify themselves as ‘a skeptic.’ To do so raises the specter of bias and agenda before one even begins to survey the world around us all. Skepticism, is something an active researcher employs inside the method of science, it is not something you are. Why? Because of two very important laws of human nature, which those who apply real skepticism understand, and fake skeptics do not get:

Neuhaus’s Law

/philosophy : skepticism : fallacies/ : where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed. Skepticism, as a goal in and of itself will always escalate to extremism.

Goodhart’s Law of Skepticism

/philosophy : skepticism : fallacies/ : when skepticism itself becomes the goal, it ceases to be skepticism.

doubtis one who prefers

A person who practices skepticism does not prefer anything. A person who practices skepticism defends a knowledge development process which is consistent with the ethical practices of science. He or she does not prefer:

beliefs and conclusions

A person who practices skepticism does not hold beliefs and conclusions – rather they recognize the valid outcomes which have arisen as a result of sound scientific method. Nothing else. Beliefs and conclusions are for the religious among us. Those seeking to promote a pre-cooked cosmology and block the ethical actions of science one does not like.

that are reliable and valid

Reliability inside science only applies when a set of knowledge accomplishes one or both of two things: 1) helping to underpin further knowledge development, or 2) helping alleviate suffering (which includes ignorance as suffrage). Outside of this context, to start by declaring that one supports beliefs and conclusions which are reliable and valid is the same thing as saying “I believe only truth.” This is the exact same thing that religious fundamentalists declare. So far into this diatribe, no basis for this claim to truth-of-the-‘skeptic’  has been offered inside this definition framing.

to ones that are comforting or convenient

In this statement, the one who has identified them self as a ‘skeptic’ has made the claim that any attestation outside what they personally hold to be ‘reliable and valid,’ is the result of personal emotional or easy pathways of philosophy or verity. This is both a bifurcation (my way or the highway) and a rather extraordinary claim, implicit in this poorly crafted amphibious and equivocal sentence. Everyone besides me composes an entire realm of seething, mindless, moaning, religiously orgasmic protoplasm. How wonderful I am (you will notice that the promotion of self is key – inside fake skepticism)!

and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason

And there you have it: The job of skepticism is to act in lieu of science to tender and enforce personal provisional conclusions. Sophomoric and incorrect philosophy. Amazing that this person ever successfully pursued a dissertation.

Moreover, implicit inside this statement is the provision, wherein, if one does not want to go through the bother of using the methods of science in order to derive a conclusion, then the magic of ¡reason! can also be used (equally valid to scientific method). Therefore, one can also sit in their university office, or basement, or celebrity convention and completely fabricate their scientific conclusions, and this all still stands as valid – beliefs and conclusions from reason, acting in lieu of science! Will wonders never cease. Our entire knowledge base as humanity, derived at my keyboard, and shoved down the throats of anyone who is comforted or convenienced by even pondering anything different.

Rigorously, as cited here can mean – that one drives home a conclusion, even in absence of sufficient evidence to do so. Openly means, to declare your results on Twitter and in ‘science’ blogs to all the world; nay promulgate this to your malevolent minions, once you have reasoned your conclusion through the insufficient but ‘rigorous‘ evidence which allowed for its adoption.

So, far 100% bullshit – a moron’s definition of skepticism – but let’s continue.

to all empirical claims, especially their own.

Now here, a slip up of sanity encroaches on this fantasy of personal power and aggrandizement. Yes, skepticism is applied to ‘claims’ and not observations, not intelligence and data, not faith, not hopes, not art, not music and drama, not subjects and not persons. It is applied to the process of vetting hypotheses, asking procedural and contextual scientific questions and undertaking the scientific method, on the part of someone qualified inside the research at hand. If this is what Novella means by ‘empirical claims,’ or more accurately, claims to empiricism, then this is correct. The purpose of skepticism is not to prove that someone is right or wrong, or to prove or disprove religions, nor act as the whip of authority proffered by external observers, nor to settle arguments. These are the abuses of skepticism by the dilettante and malevolent.

If by ‘their own‘ he means: “First and foremost finds fulfillment through disciplined pursuit of an insatiable curiosity; scrutinizing and maintaining caution around his own assumptions, regardless of where they are obtained; discriminating with discipline, ontological and religious cosmologies from actual science.” Then he is correct on this point.  If however, the contention that one examines their own claims, rises tantamount to an apologetic as to why one’s beliefs and conclusions are therefore correct through purported self-examination, then this is not what skepticism involves. Skepticism is never employed as a boast, and fake skeptics do not get this.

A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance

A skeptic does no such thing. A skeptic is averse to any such action. A skeptic may entertain some constructs as possible or likely, but they do not call those assessments conclusions nor do they accept them as science or skepticism – even provisionally. The skeptic must recognize that any logical inference is not stand alone. Our need in science is to sequence and stack inferences so that they become useful. But in such stacking we embue risk into the equation – risk which is often times not acknowledged. Such activity inevitably leads to large ‘simplest explanation’ abductive reasoning houses of cards. These houses of cards further then becoming proscribed orthodoxy, under Neuhaus’s Law. This is the methodical process of a pretend skeptic.

to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence

Again, all the fake skeptic needs in his quiver under this framing, is to declare something logical, and to base a prematurely forced conclusion upon the ‘available evidence.’  This constitutes a Transactional Occam’s Razor fallacy. Its being ‘thorough‘ in no way excuses the pseudoscience entailed therein. The phrase is an amphibology crafted so as to excuse any mode of thought one or one’s club chooses (describing this as ‘fair‘), as qualifying to stand in lieu of science. This is institutionalized dishonesty plain and simple.

and studies the pitfalls of human reason

Aha! Finally some actual study!  So far the definition framer has completely ignored the ‘researching and exploring several diametrically opposed constructs’ actual research work, the hallmark of real skepticism, and placed their sole effort in actual study – into the discipline of understanding why everyone else is so stupid besides themself. This is a game of pretense and malevolence. It is the hallmark of a spoiled and arrogant person.

and the mechanisms of deception

Whoops, they missed this definition.

so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves.

One does not avoid being deceived by ‘provisionally proportioning acceptance to beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid’ – this simply means that you are just another one of the con men yourself. Just with a different flim-flam pitch, called ‘skepticism.’ Fake skepticism: The best con job in the business. Con yourself first, con a club of con men, then con others.

The surest way to bring a con job into inception, is to begin to enforce it by means of an non-dissent-tolerant and punitive club.

In true skepticism, one avoids being deceived by holding pre-scientific dispositions in an attitude of suspended judgement, epoché. One meticulously avoids joining clubs of consensus. Hence the statement Epoché Vanguards Gnosis. Errant information will eventually step on its own dick and falsify itself, all you have to do is be patient. This is the process of skepticism, it does not involve prematurely adopting and shooting down things we choose as valid and invalid. It is not something you are, it is a discipline you practice. Its virtues are curiosity, intelligence, tolerance and patience.

Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion.

Close, but no cigar. Steven wants this to sound like he is referring to the scientific method – but he is not. This phrase, especially given context preceding it, is referential to methodical cynicism, not scientific method. True skepticism values qualified knowledge, ie. that which is effective at underpinning the further improvement of understanding or in alleviating suffering, and the scientific method. Over anything else. Even their own provisionally proportioned acceptance of beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid. What hogwash.

The definition framed here by Steven Novella is not what skepticism is at all. This is childishly obvious to a graduate level philosopher or anyone who has reduced a set of hypotheses to isolate an actual scientific discovery. Understandably, most people do not bear these qualifications, and fall easy prey to this errant pop-definition. But this is the fight we ethical skeptics must undertake. Changing the minds of those who have been media brainwashed. Allowing them see the farce for what it is, maybe for the first time.

The Emperor Wears No Clothes.

epoché vanguards gnosis

February 11, 2016 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda | , , , | Leave a comment

The Rising Age of the Cartel: Your Freedoms Were Simply an Experiment

To the SSkepticism Cabal, the US Constitution was simply a grand experiment which failed, and now we as science should usher our common good back into the 600 year old failed royalty elite-Let them Eat Cake-socialism of the past. Socialism, under the moniker of ‘consensus,’ is moral and is based on scientifically proved principles; which by chance just happen to support specific socioeconomic goals. It is this purposeful emasculation of public rights as being ‘anti-science’ based on their dissent, concern, or unapproved ideas, which we as a nation feared most in our inception – because unlike in the Thomas Paine scenario, it does not just hurt the one who precludes and denies. Unfortunately the Cabal has adopted this take on our free expression, free enterprise and economic rights as a nation. Examine the industry verticals, corporate clusters, and rates of inflation inside of such, wherein they spend the preponderance of their time in advocacy, and you will begin to glean a bit about the goals entailed.

‘Anti-Science!’ – The modern version of being accused of Witchcraft.

I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.

~ Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

Professional Skeptics, The Cartel Big Boys, are Here to Peer Review Your Supposed “Rights” Experiment as a Nation

Hyena method government was experiment - CopyThomas Paine understates the underhanded nature of censorship, in that the one who precludes himself of the right to change his mind is the least harmed by censorship. Even today, against Americans’ knowledge, their speech, their emails, their websites, their ideas – if they run counter to the Cabal, are being censored and muted by those in the Cabal who are seeking to circumvent the US Constitution and enact their own Utopia of Morality and Truth. Further, this control of ideas lends to a greater reality in which Social Skepticism is seeking to promote the dominance of a specific set of socioeconomic goals, commensurate with the rise of the socialist cartel, all in the name of ‘science.’ No better example elicits this current cartel/trust activity than the issue of the current ABCD seed monopoly and the ensuing related GMO propaganda being foisted by skeptics employed to defend the cartel.

The Public is Anti-Science!

“What happens when your political or ideological views are contradicted by the consensus of scientific opinion regarding the evidence (TES note: referring to the “safety” red herring, as opposed to necessity based validity of genetic modifications targeting simply anti-competitive profits by means food technology)? It appears that a common reaction (depending on how strongly held the ideological views are) is to reject science. Not only do people reject the science specific to their issue, they reject science itself.”

     ~ Steven Novella, Neurologica: Politics vs Science, Nov 17 2014; http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/politics-vs-science/

“It appears…” a furtive, lazy and loaded claim to broadscale knowledge. One bearing no evidence and backing only by a echochamber effect from a couple of news articles from familiar crony organizations (see chart below), tendering this same manipulated and extraordinary claim.

Steven whips out his regular ergo sum scientia fallacy – then purposely misconstrues in the above context, vis-à-vis the ‘safety of GMO’s’ strawman and red herring, the principal arguments entailed so they falsely appear to focus on the relative trivia surrounding nucleotide substitutions – yawn – rather than the economic and human rights questions entailed (below). The genetic modification of organisms is a future reality – the public is not against this science. Steven purposely occludes this core argument in favor of his preferred red herring:  By raising objection at all people are therefore, inside the above logic, at war against science …and quod erat demonstrandum their rights should be removed. Only the big boys of self-proclaimed science are qualified to formulate public policy. They are skeptical that your input is necessary.

just a word to the wise - Copy - CopyWhat indeed however is being discussed with respect to GMO food under the constitution is the right of a single corporation and/or 90+% dominant cluster of companies to employ such technology in skirting US Anti-Trust laws; simply to create channel domination profits and promote a single proprietary pesticide, all in the process of construction of a Cartel. In this case the ABCD (Archer Daniels Midland, Bungee, Cargill, Louis-Dreyfus) seed-to-table/glyphosate Cartel being defended by indirectly compensated non-expert Social Skeptics (see graphic of how a cartel functions below). Such a practice is corporate tyranny, rising well above the definition of ‘monopoly.’ It in no way constitutes an argument of safety and science, as Steven (a non-expert ‘skeptic’ in this industry) falsely contends.

In a country where its citizens cannot even call for more in-depth science on the pesticides, genes, growth promoters, hormones, antibiotics and chemicals it is FORCED to consume multiple times every day – because such science and legislation is blocked by so called ‘skeptics’ and legal/electoral threats are issued to wayward representatives,

Is this a constituency which is ‘anti-science?’

Is this a constituency who has constitutional input to its legislative representatives?

In a country where endocrine and immune diseases have gone last-20-year pandemic and cause enormous suffering, and the constituency can do NOTHING about it because ignorant ‘skeptics’ say it is all in our heads, and instead obsess over ghosts, UFO’s, bigfoot, gods, psychics and regulating supplements,

Is this skepticism which is focused on real science or scientific issues of gravitas?

Is all this indicative of a nation which is free?

The answer is a resounding ‘No

Fake Skepticism’s Role in the Rise of the Socialist Cartel

The Structure and Nature of a Cartel - CopyOn March 22, 1966, General Motors President James Roche was forced by the United States Senate to appear before a subcommittee, and further at the end of session to apologize to Ralph Nader for the company’s campaign of harassment and intimidation over his book Unsafe at Any Speed. Nader later successfully sued GM for excessive invasion of privacy. It was the money from this case that allowed him to lobby for consumer rights, leading to the creation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Clean Air Act, among other things.‡

Nader was successful in his lawsuit because he and his lawyers were able to demonstrate a track record of GM response to his criticism of the Corvair, through trying to destroy Nader’s image and to silence him. General Motors more specifically retained corporate insiders and directly compensated third parties, wherein GM

  1. conducted a series of interviews with acquaintances of the plaintiff, ‘questioning them about, and casting aspersions upon [his] political, social, racial and religious views; his integrity; his sexual proclivities and inclinations; and his personal habits’
  2. kept him under surveillance in public places for an unreasonable length of time;
  3. caused him to be accosted by girls for the purpose of entrapping him into illicit relationships;
  4. made threatening, harassing and obnoxious telephone calls to him;
  5. tapped his telephone and eavesdropped, by means of mechanical and electronic equipment, on his private conversations with others; and
  6. conducted a ‘continuing’ and harassing investigation of him.”‡

The Ralph Nader/General Motors case, more than any single event with the exception of the Big Tobacco obfuscation-skepticism, precipitated the introduction of the modern era of Social Skepticism. The General Motors Corvair case elicited the importance of establishing a non-corporate, non-third party, credible but untouchable group of fanatic activists to act on behalf of corporate interests. A mafia sans the pinstripe suits. A non-liability bearing risk-mitigation group, committed to their social understanding of the science handed to them, who would be willing with or without full awareness, to pursue the enemies of the cartel with fervent and damaging passion. All in the name of science.

Activists so sure of their correctness, that any means of social shaming, career damage, or personal defamation could be justified in the destruction of enemies of truth (cartel enemies). Activists of sufficient academic intelligence to be able to understand some science, develop an argument and publish in journal or media channels, but not smart enough to observe a game of counter intelligence and their role therein.

This prostituting of smart-but-dumb players is a common tradecraft in intelligence circles. It is the essence of modern skepticism.

From the history of the American Medical Association versus the Chiropractic industry: “in 1975 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Goldfarb vs. The Virginia State Bar, that learned professions are not exempt form antitrust suites. In 1982 the Court ruled that the FTC can enforce antitrust laws against medical societies. These two suites paved the way in 1976 for five chiropractors to file an anti-trust suite against the AMA and several other heath care agencies and societies in Federal District Court (known as the Wilkes Case). Similar suites were filed in New York and Pennsylvania in 1979. The pressure of these law suites forced the AMA even before these suites went to court to propose a modification of their Medical Code of Ethics which prohibited M.D.s from associating with chiropractors. But, it was not until 1980 that the Ethics Code was changed to reflect that each individual doctor may decide for themselves whether to accept a patient from or refer a patient to a chiropractor or other limited practitioner.”∈

These two cases more than anything else, established the need for a separate-on-the-surface activism group which was immune to anti-trust, defamation, business tampering and tortious interference laws. Cartels needed a way around the law – and inside Skepticism they found this way.

All this is introduced in the mind of the Social Skeptic under the guise of ‘science.’ Science handed to them by their corporate sponsors. Science which cannot be questioned because Social Skeptics block threatening research before it can even be developed. If you don’t accept the wholesale imposition of their politics or corporate activism, and since they and their political cronies all joined a club self-entitled ‘science,’ you are now therefore anti-science if you disagree in the least with their politics, religion, agenda and professional constraints.. In the particular instance above, Steven is contending that science justifies sets of political action which serve solely to remove human rights. The imposition of privately manipulated food stocks, property which formerly fell inside the public domain, solely for oligarch anti-competitiveness – putting small farms out of business so large socialist cartels can displace formerly free economic mechanisms – and force all of us to consume 1000 times per year, only that which they and their cronies have personally approved. This constitutes simply one small example of the goal of a socioeconomic structure dominated by cartel; cartels which feature:¹

Features of a Cartel Based Industry Vertical

enslavement of nihilismContrary to the mis-definitions of the term cartel by non-professional media sources, cartels are not ‘price fixing rings’ or ‘drug dealing corporations.’  A cartel is simply a tacit agreement inside and outside an industry vertical (one with the remaining few oligarchs) to exclude competition and entry to that market. A cartel does not have to price fix (even though by default position, a cartel is already price fixing whether the players intend to or not), nor does a cartel actually even need be profitable. All that is needed for the formation of a cartel, is the illegal vertical control of a market – enabled by partnership with government regulators, banks suppliers and M1 Financiers, across international borders, such that only grey and black markets can exist aside from its dominion.

Investopedia defines a cartel as ‘An organization created from a formal agreement between a group of producers of a good or service, to regulate supply in an effort to regulate or manipulate prices. A cartel is a collection of businesses or countries that act together as a single producer and agree to influence prices for certain goods and services by controlling production and marketing.’²

This is incorrect. Under this permissive definition, even OPEC is not considered a cartel. First there need not be a formal agreement, rather simply an industry standard set of practices. To sell crude oil, one must hold an OPEC Standard Assay Report on the lot of oil and schedule a Lifting Slot at a pier, assigned to a specific ship with a specific authorized Sail Plan. Otherwise, any oil commerce outside this practice is considered “piracy.” Push article propaganda regularly circulates citing the rise in ‘piracy,’ hoping that the American public confuses this action on the part of an excluded market with ‘Captain Phillips’ – and therefore will support increased regulatory spending. These practices are not enforced by OPEC, rather American and European banks, who will not issue MT series documents to finance any transaction which runs afoul of participation in this cartel practice set. Can I cite a reference on this? No, of course not. These are unpublished corporate policies; sets of relative privation. No one is going to publish a document entitled “Here is How Our Cartel is Run.” One only learns this by actually assisting developing nations in attempting to set up exports for their oil.

Interestingly enough, grey market oil trades are allowed, it is just they are only allowed for certain politicians and highly powerful and influential individuals …ones who could never afford to be seen taking a pay-off. Ones who mysteriously make hundreds of millions of dollars prior to an important election, through ‘smart business practices.’

Second, there need not be any price gouging in a cartel. With the intervention of free money from outside sources, the objective is not price gouging and profitability – rather simply learning how to completely control entry into a given market vertical. There is plenty of money to go around and everything can be made to appear as if it were ‘non-profitable’ (wink wink, all skeptical tongues should be held at this moment). The US Healthcare system is a fine example, of a cartel wherein costs have risen by a very conservative Standard & Poor’s definition with an imbedded rate of inflation of 48% every 10 years. Yet still, no one seems to be making blockbuster profits from price gouging. Well, imagine that. There erxists an entire network of compensated ‘skeptics’ who are appointed to defend that industry from any unwanted competition.† They have not published a set of practices in this. They just do it. “Anti-Science!!” “Deadly, Toxic, Placebo!!” are the bully weapon words employed in that shill argument. All the while conflating the British and American definitions of Homeopathy, which are wholly different, because the British definition affords them more bandwagon one-liners. The result is the Cartel targeting of preventative health philosophies and supplements, which have absolutely nothing at all to do with homeopathy in the first place.

Skeptic tweets, blogs and articles inevitably come out during the work day (most on Monday and Tuesday from 10am to 3pm), over monitored corporate networks. Their claims to have spotted fraud, poorly researched opinion sets, unwarranted and non-supported attacks on people, businesses and institutions are never met with reprisal or word of caution by their employers.  An odd exception in an industry wherein corporate image and professional standards of conduct in communication are constantly touted to be of utmost importance?

Third, it is not simply the goods themselves which are constrained in terms of access to a cartel dominion, rather, the money, agencies, supply channels, remote cost effective labor, cost efficiencies themselves, political agreements, exclusivities, contracts, shippers, consolidators, capital, licenses to operate and import, regulatory agencies, wholesalers, raw materials, etc. It is the limitation of access to these enabling market features which defines a cartel. More specifically this includes the following features:

1.  A fictitious supply of money, exercised through exclusive access placement and paper trading mechanisms which enrich the hidden royal elite of socialism – affording them unique financial access to mineral rights, international trade, materials supply, capital funding, the most highly leveraged manufacturing, channels of supply and political influence.

2. Banks which limit the volume and access, based on overhead and risk, allowed in bond and capital flows; such that only those authorized to do so, can capitalize the large scale formation of international business. These bank policies are constructed outside political boundaries so as to elude anti-trust legal jurisdiction.

3.  Corporations which bear the sole and unilateral right to modify the supply of or monopolize/cartel-ize an industry vertical, without review by or consent from the public. Anti-competitive practices which skirt anti-trust laws by operating principally offshore and through the establishment of multi-national supply monopolies of the materials, manufacturing and shipping resources necessary to establish and operate business.

4.  Corporations which bear the sole and unilateral right to construct shill and small authorized cottage capital businesses, limited in scope and size, bound by non-compete compliance agreements, which serve as barriers to entry and displace legitimate competing free enterprise inside a cartel dominated industry vertical.

5.  Corporations which bear the sole and unilateral right to take public domain property, modify it slightly, and then force this new intellectual property to displace all old public domain assets, in order to create a monopoly/cartel which previously could not legally exist, without review by or consent from the public. (All we have to do is call it ‘science’).

6.  Corporations which bear the sole and unilateral right to power of intellectual property, no longer needing patents or to attain the 3 litmus tests of patent-ability (novel, not obvious, teachable) in order to leverage domination of an industry. Intellectual property can now be forced on the public in an unqualified and non-expiring tyranny of elite ownership. (All we have to do is call it ‘property’).

7.  Corporations which bear the unilateral right to sole access to commissions and governmental agencies by means of communications, legislation, lobbying, mutual employment/inter-breeding and oversight – abrogating their accountability to the public at large. (All we have to do is simply ignore this).

8.  Barriers to Entry which are iron clad and promote economic dependence and elimination of a powerful upper and middle class, free information and press mechanisms – the enemies of socialist cartels.

9.  The comprehensive and complete control of an industry set of transactions such that select sets of those transactions can be allotted as compensation for political favors, election influence, ministry corruption, and rewards to key/royalty participants; thereby avoiding detectable illegal pay-offs. The exercise of such transactions simply keeping the appearance of business as usual for the otherwise inaccessible industry vertical.

10.  Foundations and Activist organizations which are funded by elite fictitious money, seeking to promote the dominance of socialist cartels, undue government influence, elimination of a free press, filtering and control of the internet and information, in displacement of public rights – and themselves fund money to promote compromised educational, media and ‘skepticism’ social groups.

It Starts with the Social Skepticism’s Blocking of Public Access to Rights, Self Determination, Regulation and Information

consensus - Copy

And in the end, with respect to our curiously highly motivated ‘skeptics,’ who publish most of their skeptic work right in the middle of the compensated work-day; all this is justified, no mandated, by those claiming falsely that somehow ‘science’ trumps human rights. The Phil Plaitt’s, Steven Novella’s and Michael Shermer’s of the world spit in the face of the public at large, the Bill of Rights, and insult our collective intelligence by framing the strawman, that somehow – any exercise of rights on the part of the public is irrational, vile and socially deplorable. All deployed behind the smokescreen of accusing people of being “anti-science” for the simple act of defending their rights lost in the above points.

Phil Plaitt decries the exercise of human rights over the manipulation of those rights by figures making the claim to represent science – by equivocally framing this human rights suppression as “investigation, creative progress, science.” Moreover comparing its means of constitutional jurisdiction on the part of the American People to be equivalent to Soviet tyranny and Lysenkoism:

When a society’s government (in the United States: the public) starts dictating what can and cannot be investigated, scientific and creative progress stalls. Lysenko’s work, advocated by Stalin, led to the USSR falling almost irretrievably behind other, more progressive countries; ones like the United States.

~ Phil Plaitt, Bad Astronomy: Why is Our Government Attacking Science? May 1, 2013; http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/01/attacks_on_science_government_antiscience_on_the_rise.html

This is spin and a great example of Godwin’s Gaffe, practicing exactly what Social Skeptics decry as inevitable and invalid, Godwin’s Law: their being compared to Nazi’s and Communists. The public is not dictating what can and cannot be “investigated” (save for the necessity to manage federal funding deficits and putting a cap on what is considered to be entitled money) – they are objecting to the wholesale imposition of policy, the removal of human rights and right to free enterprise, through the simple act of declaring one’s self to represent ‘science’ or specious claims of ‘scientific consensus.’ Defending one’s rights inside a constitutional jurisdiction does not in any way resemble the actions of old Bolsheviks and Lysenkoists. The designation of the defense of human rights as Lysenkoism, is the attempt to remove the right to self determination by a people, at the hands of those who are not qualified, much less appointed, to make such unilateral decisions.

The USSR fell apart because precisely because they denied public human, governmental and economic rights, not because they squelched the ideas of those who called themselves ‘scientists.’ The alternative Godwin’s Gaffe foisted above is a clueless re-invention of history. Ironically, it was the Soviet Union who delved more deeply into subjects which were and still are, forbidden and disdained by Social Skeptics in the United States.

rise of oligarchy - CopyThe result of this is a dramatic shift of wealth back into the same socialist hands which served to precipitate World War I and II (see graphic from the Economist, to the right). We are well underway back to the establishment of this same form of socioeconomic practice, once again.

Our best and our brightest, too stupid, skeptical and compliant to spot when they have been manipulated into serving institutions which only promote royalty, and serve to enslave and create conflict.

To the SSkepticism Cabal, in their superior educated wisdom, the US Constitution was simply a grand experiment which failed, and now we should step back into the 600 year old failed royalty-Let them Eat Cake-socialism of the past. Because socialism is moral and based on scientifically proved principle, my principles, human rights are an unnecessary if they get in the way of cartel power and the intentions of those who declare themselves to be ‘science.’ It is this purposeful targeting of persons based on their ideas, which we as a nation feared most in our inception – because unlike in the Thomas Paine scenario, it does not just hurt the one who precludes and denies.

This principle, the concept that it is experimentally moral to change government solely for reasons of increased control, and begin to remove and filter ideas based on their ‘truth and reason’ content is no better expressed than by Michael Shermer himself; grand master of social morality and truth enforcement on the populace.  A product of religion himself, now spinning his new religion with a blood-thirst by which even Jerry Falwell would be awed.

If you want different results [government], change the variables. “The founders often spoke of the new nation as an ‘experiment,’” Ferris writes. “Procedurally, it involved deliberations about how to facilitate both liberty and order…” As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1804: “No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth.” ³

~ Michael Shermer, The Work of Michael Shermer, Scientific American, Sept 2010.

  • Your freedom of speech, was just an experiment
  • Your rights to assemble and communicate, were just an experiment
  • Your right to unfiltered information, was just an experiment
  • A free press, was just an experiment
  • A free capital economy, was just an experiment
  • Your right to bear arms, was just an experiment
  • Your right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness, was just an experiment
  • Your right to thrive, was just an experiment
  • Your right to freedom from totalitarian corporations acting in lieu of the public trust and right to self-determination, was just an experiment

And since We Are The Science, only We, the Cabal, are authorized to issue Peer Review on this experiment.

We will note with the Cabal that, the only thing which will not be an experiment, is their power. That is absolute and unquestionable. They have made this very clear.


¹  Appleyard, Field, Cobb, “In the Real World: The Effects of International Cartels,” International Economics (Seventh Edition), pp 139 – 150.

²  Investopeidia, “Cartel;”   http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cartel.asp

³  “Democracy’s Laboratory,” The Work of Michael Shermer, September 2010; Scientific American; http://www.michaelshermer.com/2010/09/democracys-laboratory/

†  Social Skeptic Organizations Directly Compensated by Pharmaceutical Companies:

‡  Unsafe at Any Speed: Industry Response, Wikipedia; extracted 21 Sep 2015:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed.

July 7, 2015 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism | , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Diagnostic Habituation Error and Spotting Those Who Fall Its Prey

Diagnostic methods do not lend themselves to discovery goals; only to conclusions. The wise skeptic understands the difference in mindset of either approach, its value in application, and can spot those who fall prey to diagnostic habituation; hell bent on telling the world what is and what is not true.
Linear diagnostic thinkers tend to regard that one must ‘believe’ in or have scientific proof of their idea prior to conducting any research on it in the first place. They will not state this, however – watch carefully their illustration of applied scientific methodology. A bias towards prescriptive conclusions, obsession over beliefs, enemies and wanting proof as the first step of the scientific method will eventually broach in their worn out examples of poorly researched 1972 Skeptic’s Handbook bunk exposé.
When Lab Coats Serve to Deceive Self
There's no such thing as...

Nickell plating is the method of twisted thinking wherein one adorns lab coats and the highly visible implements of science in order to personally foist a display of often questionable empirical rigor. In a similar fashion, lab coats can also be used to deceive self, if one does not “live the examined life” as cited in the Socratic Apology 38a path context. Diagnostic Habituation Error is a very common judgement error in scientific methodology, often committed by professionals who work in very closed set domains, realms which involve a high degree of linear thinking, or matching of observation (or symptom) to prescriptive conclusion. The medical field is one such discipline set inside of which many professionals become blinded by protocols to such an extent that they fail to discern the more complex and asymmetrical demands of science in other disciplines.

For instance, medical diagnosticians use a term called a SmartPhrase in order to quickly communicate and classify a patient medical record entry for action or network flagging. A SmartPhrase is an a priori diagnostic option, a selection from cladistic clinical language, used in patient Electronic Health Record (EHR) documentation. While its intent was originally to compress and denote frequently used language, it has emerged as a defacto diagnostic option set as well. Wittgenstein would be nodding his aged head to this natural evolution. The nomenclature and diagnostic option set afforded makes life immersed inside Electronic Health Records easier for physicians. It makes science easier – but comes at a cost as well. A cost which the diagnostician must constantly bear in mind.

Not all sciences are like diagnostic medicine and astronomy. Most are vastly more complex in their deontologically reductive landscape. Diagnostician’s Error – is the failure to grasp this.

It would not constitute a far stretch of the imagination to understand why a clinical neurologist might not understand the research complexity or sequencing entailed in scientifically identifying a new species, assessing the impact of commodities on economics and poverty or the discovery of a new material phase state.  Despite their scientific training, they will habitually conclude that no such new species/state exists, because the traps we set for them are empty, our observations must have come from flawed observational memory, or that the textbook doctrine on ‘supply and demand’/’elastic and inelastic’ demand curves apply to our situation. Diagnostics in the end, do not lend themselves to discovery.  This is why it is all to common to observe clinical diagnosticians in Social Skeptic roles, denying the existence of this or that or pooh-poohing the latest efforts to use integrative medicine on the part of the public. These ‘skeptics’ comprehend only an abbreviated and one dimensional, linear version of the scientific method; if they apply any at all. In diagnostics, and in particular inside of medicine, the following compromises to the scientific method exist: (diagnostic and clinical medicine and not medical research):

  • symptom eventually equals previously known resolution
  • only the ‘most likely’ or ‘most risk bearing’ alternatives need be tested
  • very little need for discovery research
  • absence of evidence always equals evidence of absence
  • only lab experimental testing is valid
  • single parameter measure judgements are employed with abandon
  • the first question asked is an experiment, little advance thought is required
  • the first question presumes an whole domain of familiar ‘known’
  • the intelligence research has already been completed by others – and is assumed comprehensive
  • necessity observation is done by the patient (but is discounted in favor of experiment)
  • Ockham’s Razor involves fixed pathways
  • the set of possible outcomes is fixed and predetermined
  • an answer must be produced at the end of the deliberative process

The key, for The Ethical Skeptic, is to be able to spot those individuals who not only suffer from forms of Diagnostic Habituation, but also have a propensity to enforce the conclusions from such errant methodology and thinking on the rest of society.  Not all subjects can be resolved by diagnostics and linear thinking. This form of thinking usually involves avoiding a rigor called a logical calculus, in favor of something called abductive (or simplest explanation) reasoning.  If one is not absolutely sure that the domain inside of which they are working is truly abductive (disease is 98% abductive – the rest of our reality is not) – then it would be an error to use this type of reasoning universally as one’s approach to broader science. One does not research anomalous phenomena by using abductive reason for instance; because abductive logical inference was what kept the world locked in religious and Dark Age understandings of our realm for so long.

Reasoning Types†

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.

Strength – quick to the answer. Usually a clear pathway of delineation. Leverages strength of diagnostic data.

Weakness – Uses the simplest answer (ergo most likely). Does not back up its selection with many key mechanisms of the scientific method. If an abductive model is not periodically tested for its predictive power, such can result in a state of dogmatic axiom.

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.

Strength – flexible and tolerant in using consilience of evidence pathways and logical calculus to establish a provisional answer (different from a simplest answer, however still imbuing risk into the decision set). Able to be applied in research realms where deduction or alternative falsification pathways are difficult to impossible to develop and achieve.

Weakness – can lead research teams into avenues of provisional conclusion bias, where stacked answers begin to become almost religiously enforced until a Kiuhn Paradigm shift or death of the key researchers involved is required to shake science out of its utility blindness on one single answer approach. May not have examined all the alternatives, because of pluralistic ignorance or neglect.

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.

Strength – most sound and complete form of reason, especially when reduction of the problem is developed, probative value is high and/or alternative falsification has helped select for the remaining valid understanding.

Weakness – can be applied less often than inductive reason.

Diagnostic Habituation Error

/philosophy : science : method : linear diagnostics : unconscious habituation/ : the tendency of medical professionals and some linear thinkers to habitually reduce subjects of discourse inside protocols of diagnosis and treatment, when not all, or even most fields of discourse can be approached in this manner. Diagnosis must produce an answer, is performed inside a closed set of observational data domain, constrained fields of observation (eg. 1500 most common human maladies), are convergent in model nature, tend to increasing simplicity as coherency is resolved and develop answers which typically select from a closed field of prescriptive conclusions. All of these domain traits are seldom encountered in the broader realms of scientific research.

DIAGNOSTICIANS

Detecting a Linear Diagnostic Thinker – Habituated into Selecting From a Prescriptive Answer Inventory
They tend to think that one must ‘believe’ in or have scientific proof of their idea prior to conducting any research on it in the first place. They will not state this, however – watch carefully their illustration of applied scientific method. They will rarely grasp an Ockham’s Razor threshold of plurality, nor understand its role; obsessively clinging to the null hypothesis until ‘proof’ of something else arrives. Gaming method, knowing full well that ‘proof’ seldom arrives in science.

The determination of a diagnosis of inherited static encephalopathy may be a challenging endeavor at first, and indeed stands as a process of hypothesis reduction and science.  However, this reduction methodology differs from the broader set of science and in particular, discovery science in that it features the following epignosis characteristics. The problem resides when fake skeptics emulate the former process and advertise that its method applies to their ability to prescriptively dismiss what they do not like.

your deceptive practicesA key example of applied Diagnostic Habituation Error can be found here. An elegant demonstration of how well-applied diagnostic methodology inside a clinical technical role can serve to mislead its participant when applied in the broader realms of science. This treatise exhibits a collegiate level dance through repetitious talk about method, parlaying straight into sets of very familiar, poorly researched canned conclusions, excused by high school level pop-skeptic dogma. Worn out old propaganda about about how memory is fallible if we don’t like its evidence, and if you research anything forbidden, your mind is therefore ‘believing’ and playing tricks on its host.

Diagnosis Based Science (How it differs from the broader set of science reduction and discovery)

the diagnostic habituation errorObservational Domain is Set, Experimental Only and Controlled – the human body is the domain and the set of observable parameters is well established, known and relatively easily and only measured.

Example:  Observable parametrics in the human body consist of blood measures, skin measures, neurological signals, chemical signatures and hormone levels, physical measures and those measures which can be ascertained through bacteriology and virology. In medicine, the scientific method starts there.  In discovery science, method does not start with an experiment, it starts with observation, necessity and intelligence. Despite the complexity which is inherent inside these observational domains, still the set is highly restricted and the things observed-for, well known for the most part. In contrast, examining the galaxy for evidence of advanced life will be a long, poorly understood and failure laden pathway. We cannot begin this process with simply the Drake Equation and an experiment and hope to have success.

Field of Observation is Constrained and Well Established with Gnosis Background – there are only a few subset disciplines inside which observations can be made. Each is well documented and for which is published a guiding set of protocols, advisement, and most recent knowledge base regarding that discipline.

Example:  There exist only a closed set of systems inside the human body, which are for the most part well understood in terms of dysfunction and symptom. Integumentary, skeletal, nervous, cardiovascular, endocrine and muscular systems. Compare this to the energy systems which regulate our planetary environment. Most are not well understood in terms of impact, and we are not even sure how many constitute the major contributors to climate impact, or even how to measure them. I am all behind science on Climate Change, but in no way do I regard the discipline as a diagnostic field. I am wary of those who treat it as such.  And they are many.

Fixed Ockham’s Razor Mandate, Single Hypothesis and Extreme Null Evidence Standards – The protocols of diagnosis always dictate that the most likely or danger-entailing explanation be pursued in earnest, first and only. Once this hypothesis has been eliminated, only then can the next potential explanation be pursued. Absence of evidence is always taken as evidence of absence. This is not how discovery or asymmetric science works. Very rarely is diagnostic science challenged with a new medical discovery.

Example:  When a 55 year old patient is experiencing colon pain, the first response protocol in medicine is to order a colonoscopy. But in research regarding speciation for instance, or life on our planet, one does not have to solely pursue classic morphology studies to establish a phylogeny reduction. One can as well simultaneously pursue DNA studies and chemical assay studies which take a completely different tack on the idea at hand, and can be used to challenge the notion that the first phylogeny classification was a suitable null hypothesis to begin with. Real research can begin with several pathways which are in diametric opposition.

Diagnoses are Convergent in Nature – the methods of reduction in a diagnosis consistently converges on one, or maybe two explanatory frameworks inside a well known domain of understanding. In contrast, the broader world of modeling results in convergent models very rarely; moreover, often in non-discriminating or divergent models which require subjective reasoning in order to augment in terms of a decision process (if a decision is chosen at all).

Example:  If I have a patient complaining of tinnitus, my most complex challenge exists on the first day (in most cases). I am initially faced with the possible causes of antibiotics effects, hearing loss, intestinal infection, drug use, excessive caffeine intake, ear infections, emotional stress, sleep disorder or neurological disorder. From there evidence allows our models to converge on one optimal answer in short order in most cases.  Compare in contrast an attempt to discern why the level of poverty in a mineral rich country continues to increase, running counter to the growing GDP derived through exploitation of those minerals. The science and models behind the economics which seek to ascertain the mechanisms driving this effect can become increasingly divergent and subjective as research continues.

Tendency is Towards Increasing Simplicity as Coherency is Resolved – medical diagnoses tend to reduce information sets as coherency is attained and focus on one answer.  Please note that this is not the same as reducing complexity.  The reduction of complexity is not necessarily a scientific goal – as many correct solutions are indeed also inherently complex.

Example:  As I begin to diagnose and treat a case of Guillain–Barré syndrome, despite the initial chaos which might be entailed in symptom and impact mitigation, or the identification of associated maladies – eventually the patient and doctor are left with a few reduced and very focused symptomatic challenges which must be addressed.  CNS impacts, nerve damage, allergies and any residual paralysis, eventually the set of factors reduces to a final few.  In contrast, understanding why the ecosystem of the upper Amazon is collapsing, despite the low incidence of human encroachment, is a daunting and increasingly complex challenge. Its resolution may require much out-of-the-box thinking on the part of researchers who constantly exhaust multiple explanatory pathways and cannot wait for each one-by-one, prescriptive solution or explanation or a null hypothesis to ‘work itself out’ over 25 years.

Selects from Solutions Inside a Closed Field of Prescriptive Options – Almost all medical diagnoses are simply concluded from a well or lesser, but known set of precedent solutions from which decisions can be made and determinations drawn.  This is not the case with broader scope or discovery science.

Example:  In the end, there are only a set of about 1500 primary diseases from which we (most of the time) can regularly choose to diagnose a set of symptoms, most with well established treatment protocols. Contrast this with the World Health Organization’s estimate that over 10,000 monogenic disorders potentially exist.¹ The research task entailed inside monogenic nucleotide disorders is skyrocketing and daunting.  This is discovery science. The diagnosis of the primary human 1500 diseases, is not. Different mindsets will be needed to approach these very different research methodologies.

An Answer Must be Produced or We Fail – 100% of diagnostic processes involve the outcome of a conclusion. In fake skepticism, of course the participants are rife with ‘answer which as the greatest likelihood of being true’ type baloney.  To the Diagnostic Habituated fake skeptic, an answer has to be produced – NOW. But in a discovery process, we do not necessarily have to have an answer or disposition on a subject.  Be very wary of those who seem to force answers and get angry when you do not adopt their conclusion immediately. Be wary of those who have an answer for all 768 entries in The Skeptic’s Dictionary (including those who wrote the material). They are not conducting a scientifically reliable or honest exercise, rather are simply propping up a charade which seeks to alleviate the mental dissonance stress from something larger which disturbs them greatly. See Corber’s Burden. As one claims to be an authority on all that is bunk, their credibility declines in hyperbolic inverse proportion to the number of subjects in which authority is claimed.

Example:  If one is experiencing pain, for the most part both the patient and the researcher will not stop until they have an answer.  A conclusive finish to the pain itself is the goal after all, and not some greater degree of human understanding necessarily.  Contrast this with grand mysteries of the cosmos. We do not yet have an answer to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey “Giant Blob” Quasar Cluster² observation and how it could easily exist under current understandings of classical cosmology or M-theory. We have to await more information. No one has even suggested forcing a ‘answer which has the greatest likelihood of being true.’ To do so would constitute pseudoscience.

It is from this constrained mindset which the Ethical Skeptic must extract himself/herself, in order to begin to grasp why so many subjects are not well understood, and why we must think anew in order to tackle the grander mysteries of our existence. The more we continue to pepper these subjects with prescripted habituated diagnoses, the more those who have conducted real field observation will object. We have well observed the falling back on the same old ‘conspiracy theorist’ pejorative categorization of everyone who disagrees with the diagnoses proffered by these linear thinkers. It is not that a diagnostic approach to science always produces an incorrect answer. But if we follow simply the error of diagnosis habituation, then let’s just declare that mind Ξ brain right now, and we can close up shop and all go home. And while I might not bet against the theory were it on the craps table in Vegas and I were forced to make a selection now, neither am I in an ethical context ready to reject its antithesis simply because some diagnostic linear thinkers told me to.

I am an Ethical Skeptic, I don’t reject your idea as false, but I await more information. As a discovery researcher I refuse to simply accept your diagnostically habitual ‘critical thinking;’ nor its identifying which answer the constrained set has shown ‘is most likely true.’

That is not how real skepticism and real science work.


¹  World Health Organization, “Genes and Human Disease,” Genomic Resource Center, Spring 2015; http://www.who.int/genomics/public/geneticdiseases/en/index2.html.

² The Biggest Thing in the Universe, National Geographic; January 11, 2013, National Geographic Society;  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/01/130111-quasar-biggest-thing-universe-science-space-evolution/.

† Abductive, Inductive, and Deductive Reason definitions – are modified from their approximate definitions provided by Wikipedia, in its series on reasoning and logical inference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

May 14, 2015 Posted by | Argument Fallacies | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: