The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

Anatomy of a Media Hack Job

Official Promulgators of Pre-concluded Propaganda are Partners with Pretend Skeptics

Astrobiologist Richard B. Hoover spent more than forty six years working at NASA as a scientist who authored 33 volumes and 250 papers on astrobiology, extremophiles, diatoms, solar physics, X-ray/EUV optics and meteorites. He holds 11 U.S. patents and was 1992 NASA Inventor of the Year.  Now he is an absolutely crack-pot and credential-less liar, completely unfamiliar with science and the scientific method.  That is what the Associated Press and their SSkeptic Cabal partners would have the easy prey gullible market believe.  Real scientists do not believe this, but a second purpose of this type of article (cited below) is to threaten real scientists with a similar punishment to what has been dealt Richard Hoover.  Richard Hoover no longer cares, the Cabal cannot hurt him in the normal way, he is free to act in a line of integrity consistent with his professional conscience.  This article is exemplary of an active and common method of pseudoscience in action.  SSkeptics do not act on integrity or conscience, they take action based on agendas and party doctrine.  A choice example of a very competent work of propaganda, cited below, was published March 7, 2011 by the Associated Press (http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/4187965-418/scientists-skeptical-of-meteorite-alien-life-claim.html).

Richard Hoover analyzed two meteorites of recent introduction to Earth (one in the 1960’s and one in the 1860’s) and found that they had fossilized microbial life contained in them.  The null hypothesis being that these acknowledged fossilized life forms simply came from earth after the 1860 and 1960 impacts.  More importantly, he cited the evidence for this ancient, off Earth origin of the fossilized life, as being

richard b hoover1.  An absence of expressive nitrogen, which all life ‘out-gasses’ (actually a form of sputtering to be more accurate) consistently for millions of years post mortem (the meteors only hit Earth very recently) up and to the point of fossilization start, and

2.  An absence of 2 of the 5 DNA/RNA nucleic acids, for all life on Earth, in the electron microscopy assays, contrasting with all fossilizing/deceased life on earth expressing all 5 nucleic acids consistently because of the incumbent 1:1 chemical bond relationship bolstered by the histone re-enforced 5′ – 3′ spline.  One either indicates either all 5, or none typically, not simply 3 of the nucleic series, and

3.  The scientifically baseless and unprecedented idea that a fossilization process could fully execute the observed calcified substitution in just 40 or 140 years, post impact.

Why would the article below, or for that matter, commenting scientists and NASA, not address these claims at face value?  This is standard Organic Chemistry and Microbiology 3033 undergraduate level science. Yawn.

Now these are evidence based claims, but ethically I cannot yet accept them because the scientific method has not yet been completed.  The next step in the scientific method is to Replicate the Results/Study.  The problem is, that the scientific method in this case, never will be completed.  Instead, the press has taken on this threatening subject via a key partnership with the SSkeptic Cabal, both in pretense of representing the prevailing opinion of scientists and in execution of the scientific method.  They have published push-propaganda hack job articles through standardized media channels to ensure that the next step in the scientific method is never undertaken.  The purpose of this article below is to tender the correct answer and intimidate any scientist who dares suggest or initiate the next step in the scientific method – Warning:  No one should take it upon himself, at risk of reputation, to attempt to comment or Reproduce the Study/Results.

The purpose of articles such as these is not to relate an air of scientific competency.  Any reasonably well trained technician can see that this is simpleton dilettante propaganda.  More importantly they understand that the real purpose involved in such articles is to demonstrate the damaging and unethical lengths to which the Cabal will and can stoop, in order to punish members who step out of line.

Notice as well that the article employs the fake version of Ockham’s Razor, Occam’s Razor and the ‘simplest explanation’ here.  They even wheel out some hapless scientist tendering one-liners who has fallen for this ‘simplest explanation’ fallacy, who never encountered William of Ockham and his Theory of Knowledge in his doctrinal studies apparently (not sure how one does that, but I guess some schools will give anyone a PhD for anything).

This is typical SSkeptic pseudo-science in its partnership with mainstream media.  It is dishonesty and tyranny in action.  It is one of the most insidious evils which exists on this planet today, much worse than organized religions, who at least possess the integrity to admit to constituting a set of religious beliefs, and no longer promulgate mandatory beliefs, as now does the SSkeptic Cabal.

Anatomy of a Media Hack Job – The Push Propaganda Partnership in Action

Associated Press Hack Job

February 27, 2014 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Deskeption, Institutional Mandates | , , , , | 2 Comments

Detecting an Apologist

701platoKnow when to detect an Apologist, whether Religious or Social Skeptic, and be able to distinguish and contrast them from persons who legitimately promote rational thought or science.

An Apologist is pushing a certain set of beliefs and agendas.  Agendas are not the same as principles.  This is key.  Principles are unbiased techniques which improve a process and tend to unify – agendas require adherence to specific objective tenets of a program or membership; and polarize.

Apologetics, as a modern practice was reapplied from the Greek classical thought as an academic defense of the Christian Religion, which ruled Western academia up until the 18th Century.

Remember however – that the practices in academia have not changed since the tyranny of the pre-Industrial Revolution – only the religion they enforce has changed.

This is the subtle key to understanding the mind of the Apologician, both Religious and Social Skeptic.

apologistsPractice of Apologetics – apolo-gist (uh pahl’ uh jist) n. [[Fr apologiste, apo– from, logos– speak, gist– one; Gr apologeisthai, to speak in defense]] a person who writes or speaks in defense or justification of a specific doctrine, faith, teaching, action, etc. Caveat Eritis (Researcher Beware – lit. “let they who would study take caution”)

1. The Apologist, despite what they may imply, does not represent any higher subjective institution such as God, Science or Academia.

2.  An Apologist will impute excessive significance to academic or divine credentials – and their own status therein.

3. The Apologist does not carry the credential of a field unless they are actively employed to research that field.

4. An Apologist will imply that their qualifications in one field of study lend basis for credibility in another field.

5. An Apologist who attempts to influence by fear is to be ignored (even if they offer “good news”).

6. An Apologist will attempt to pork barrel their beliefs hidden inside of proven theory.

7.  An Apologist will declare a subject already resolved and imply or cite that you are unaware.

8. An Apologist will seek to blur clarity between science principle, evidence and personal philosophy.

9. An Apologist will pass extrapolations or interpolations off partial data as proven fact.

10. An Apologist will focus on only a few high profile examples on any issue and will have pat conclusions to address each. (Anecdotal)

11. An Apologist will refuse to deal with aggregate data or confidence intervals on unwelcome topics.

12. An Apologist will deal in plausible denial pat answers and discourse only on a case by case basis.

13.  An Apologist will not pursue the Scientific Method if it introduces unwelcome topics.

14. An Apologist will attempt to make your view or open mind subservient to some external or written unquestionable authority.

15. Apologists who deride views as pedestrian, ignorant, or in mock comical fashion are to be eschewed, regardless of credentials held. Their character has been revealed.

16. An Apologist will quote one-liners or written quips rather than tender honest unprejudiced personal reflections.

17. Apologists will seek to proselytize the young.

18. Apologists bristle at an increase in information.

19.  Apologists do not think that others can be trusted with information. Conclusions only, are to be tendered to the masses.

20.  An Apologist will derogate the thoughts of and attack persons who are not in their club.

21. An Apologist will not listen to you, and will already have your position constrained and defined for you.

22. An Apologist does not have an opinion, they promulgate new policy and thinking.

23. An Apologist aggregates diverse groups all into one commonly held condemned thought set.

TES Signature

June 30, 2013 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda | , , | Leave a comment

   

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: