Observation vs Claim Blurring

Claims and Observations are not the same thing.  When one develops a patent or a scientific report, the discipline between what constitutes an observation and what is declared to be a claim are manifest. But fake researchers and false SSkeptics over-use the term ‘claim’ for a reason. One which circumvents science and ensures that data is dismissed in the collection stage, through protocol sleight-of-hand.

“I refuse to hear your claims as this has all been disproved already.”  The term claim, is misappropriated by SSkeptics through invalid expansion of its logical and context footprint beyond what rationality would bear in the mind of the educated listener. SSkeptics feel they are tendered license to circumvent the diligence and standards of science, since after all their goals are one in the same with science and all of their practices and rationale are sciencey. Right? …Wrong. Observation versus Claim Blurring stands as one of the quintessential examples as to why it is science which much tender dispositions on challenging data, and not the Cabal of Social Skepticism. They have demonstrated throughout history that they cannot be trusted with this process.

Observation vs Claim Blurring

/philosophy : pseudo-skepticism/ : the false practice of calling an observation of data, a ‘claim’ on the observers’ part.  This in an effort to subjugate such observations into the category of constituting scientific claims which therefore must be evaluated by science at face value before mature in the scientific method. Subsequently such data can be dismissed in the data collection stage, without fact or rationale, simply by equivocation with the protocol involved.  In fact an observation is simply that, a piece of evidence or a fact, and its false dismissal under the pretense of being deemed a ‘claim’ is a practice of deception and pseudoscience.

One of the most commonly practiced sleight-of-hand techniques employed by SSkeptics, is the practice of hi-jacking Carl Sagan quotes, and enforcing compliant arguments by twisting them around in misapplied contexts and at inappropriate stages of the Scientific Method.  In doing so, they tender the appearance that science supports their beliefs 100%.  In fact, to a scientist, such equivocation is never employed inside true lab disciplines or in the development of a patent. Were we to apply Social Skeptic ‘science’ to the lab or patenting process, very few cutting edge technologies would have ever been patented or discovered.  In fact, one of the most oft touted quotes by SSkeptics, “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence” is more accurately a threat to common SSkeptic propaganda, than it is a logically effective counter against challenging observations which SSkeptics do not find compatible with Nihilist religious tenets.  SSkeptics are quick to whip out the ‘Extraordinary Claims’ quote taught them in the early days of Junior SSkeptic catechism. To a SSkeptic, this quip stands like a Bible Verse or Van Helsing Crucifix to be employed against the evil they have been taught to hate.  But most often, this quote of wisdom is abused by SSkeptics, who do not understand what Carl Sagan was attempting to communicate across a series of books from The Cosmic Connection through to The Dragons of Eden. SSkeptics lazily rest on the assured platform that sounding ‘sciencey,’ through utterance of this famous quote, will somehow tender them gravitas equal to that of a scientist. However, to a person who truly understands and works with the scientific method, one who daily prosecutes contentions which lever on their understanding of the differential between an observation and a claim, this statement does not sound as clever as SSkeptics regard it to be.

Disclosures, Observations and Claims: Laboratory and Patent Science

Patents, and for that matter experimental studies, are filed with several basic elements, the principal two of which are considered by the patent examiner or superintendent, Disclosures and Claims.  Disclosures are evidences, precedents, background, data and observations which the patent applicant desires for the patent examiner to understand prior to adjudicating the status of their proposed patent claims set.  A disclosure is simply the delivery of a fact or observation.  It is NOT a claim.  In fact, should a researcher desire simply to disclose research, background, precedent and observations – they typically do so in the form of a Provisional Patent Application, which is not submitted in an effort to be reviewed for acceptance, rather simply a registry of data. If a researcher intermixes the two, his or her patent or report will be rejected. A claim on the other hand is an extrapolation, contrivance or conjecture bearing an element of risk in its offing. It is something which has not been contended before, which must be supported by a sufficiently justifying set of corroborating information.


A facet of data, noted by a qualified eyewitness observer or reporting system/measurement mechanism.

Three Distinguishing Features of a Claim

a.  Leverages a non-observed extrapolation from one or more observations and their relationship(s).

b.  Avers an objective contention which has not been cited before in a methodical context of analytical support.

c.  Bears an element of acceptance risk.


Observation:  I distilled the liquid for 3 hours, observing mass loss of 44.3%, yet the chemical concentrations by weight at the end of distillation remained the same for both the ethanol and water in the mixture.

Claim:  Water and ethanol in solution execute dynamic evaporation phase states which can be modified through the application of direct electric current, and can achieve the same results which would appear azeotropic in nature, however are not concentrated at the 95.63% ethanol and 4.37% water (by weight) mixture required for azeotropic distillation.

Observation:  I saw a 2 foot tall, odd looking man in a green suit and with a green derby run across my lawn.

Claim:  Leprechauns comprise an entire civilization living under the ground, hidden from us all.

Claims are CLEARLY delineated in a patent application and in most of disciplined science – and are not simply observations.  Everything aside from a claim is an observation, fact or an enabling disclosure.  In other words, a patent examiner or lab superintendent is determining the validity of the claims made in the patent filing and not deciding whether or not to approve disclosures.  In true science, claims are not the same thing as observations.

SSkeptics Conduct Knowledge Filtering through Equivocation with Observations and Claims

SSkpetics eschew disciplines such as those that are applied in the patent prosecution process, as these disciplines hold THEM accountable.  Blurring the difference between what constitutes a claim and what constitutes an observation is a common tactic of deceit on their part.  In this way SSkeptics can categorize even reported observations as requiring extraordinary evidence (which they know cannot possibly be provided on demand).  This is a method of Knowledge Filtering and is Deskeption.

  • Observations are NOT Claims
  • SSkeptics fail to distinguish when their grand dismissive conclusions are themselves, extraordinary claims – which require extraordinary evidence

Critics who assert negative claims, but who mistakenly call themselves ‘skeptics,’ often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on them at all. A result of this is that many critics seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence.”  – Marcello Truzzi (Founding Co-chairman of CSICOP (Claims of the Paranormal))

Perhaps Carl Sagan was less of a SSketpic, than control freaks think him to have been.  Maybe he was leaving a hint which has completely escaped SSkeptics all these years.