At the heart of sciebam, resides what is in essence an embargo of specific ideas, avenues of research, and methods of investigation. It is a simultaneous appeal to truth, appeal to embargo, and proselytization all in one. Religion dressed up in p-values and confidence intervals.
Years ago, I was hired as President of a materials research company, brought into resolve the capital-consuming logjam situation which had developed among the lab’s researchers. The lab and its research team were funded under a scope of finding the solution to an impasse inside material physics which had existed in industry for decades (many of the particulars are/were 32 C.F.R. 2001 Classified). A grand set of assumptions as to what was possible and impossible, had grown like ivy around the state of knowledge inside the subject. The team’s task was to break this impasse in knowledge, so that critical applications of the resulting technology could be developed inside the aerospace and energy industries.
To make a long story very short, we were successful in this development – the first time the particular achievement had ever been accomplished (by mankind at least). I will never forget the 3:45 pm Friday call from one of the techs, “Mr. G, we got 18 successful tests out of 240 iterations, and they all pertained to a single parameter and single reactor setting.” That was exactly what we had been looking for. While this set of happenstance does not serve to make me any kind of expert in material physics by any means, it did derive in part from a prowess in skepticism and the processes of science. It stemmed from a discernment of the difference between real and protect-my-job scientific activity.
I had the team immediately lock the accesses to the building, shut off the internet and phones, and station an armed guard at the front door – and to not allow anyone to enter or leave the facility until I could come (I was a mere 5 minutes away at a key vendor’s shop) and debrief them. This also involved a team celebration of course. It was an exciting evolution for everyone involved. The board members were all very noteworthy and powerful persons, who then unfortunately split according to their level of greed and desire for control of both company and intellectual property – each team encouraging me to join them.
Aside from issues of greed and power, the chief principle which served as the basis of the logjam inside that particular research, involved the conflation of two differing notions of science. One which venerates challenge and incremental discovery, versus another which prioritizes the control and career stability achievable through exploiting established knowledge. The reason I was hired in the first place is because one, I don’t venerate old untested knowledge and two, I am not intimidated in the least by scientists flaunting degrees, exclusionary lexicon, and technical notation jargon. The research team knew it too. Such barriers to entry, can only stand for so long before one eventually figures out the game. Within a week, I was pressing the old guard past their ability to defend the status quo and began developing new testing approaches, lab procedures, and shift dockets.
Sciebam – Consensus Through Appeal to Truth (Implicit Embargo)
In similar principle, much of what is conducted in the name of science today, is not science for the most part – rather a technical process of career qualification through methodical and linear confirmation bias, a set of activities which I call sciebam. Such activity contrasts itself with the discipline of science along the following lines:
Science (Latin: scī́mus/sciḗmus -‘we know/we will know’)1 – leveraging challenging thinking, deductive falsification, straightforward complexity, and consilience to infer a critical path of novel comprehension† – one prosecutes (pursues) truth.
Sciebam (Latin: sciēbā́mus -‘we knew’)2 – exploiting assumption, abduction, panduction, complicated simplicity, and linear/statistical induction to confirm an existing or orphan understanding† – one is holder of the truth.
At the heart of sciebam, resides what is in essence an embargo of specific ideas, avenues of research, and methods of investigation. Of course most researchers do not typically perceive their habits in such fashion, so it often takes an outsider to come in and shake things up. To in effect, sweep out the cobwebs of sciebam and renew an interest in a passion for true discovery (see The Strategic Mindset).
There exists a principle of philosophy that I observe, which falls along the lines of Sir Isaac Newton’s third law of motion, also known as the law of action-reaction. That is, unless one is very careful, an appeal to truth will almost always be accompanied by, at the very least, an implicit appeal to embargo. Nihilism is the embargo, which comes commensurate with the ‘truth’ of not being able to measure outside the bounds of physical reality. Collectivism suffers the embargo which results from the ‘truth’ of a successful deployment of capital. Freedom suffers the embargo which arrives under the awesome specter of an impending cataclysm‘s ‘truth’.
When an advocate appeals to authority of truth, by means of enforcing an embargo of competing ideas – they are typically protecting a lie, or at least hyperbole. Even if that advocate is accidentally correct about their truth in the end, such mechanism still constitutes a lie because of the way in which the truth was enforced – by means of explicit or implicit false dichotomy, and enforcement of a false null hypothesis with no competing alternative idea. Accuracy in such a case, is a mere triviality.
Ethical Skeptic’s Law – if science won’t conduct the experiment, society will force the experiment. One can only embargo an idea for so long.
An Example of Appeal to Truth (Implicit Embargo)
Psychologist (no doubt psychologists often fall prey to this error – observe here which disciplines dominate inside fake skepticism) Dr. Gary Marcus at the University of Washington is a proponent of an embargo regarding any research which pursues a pathway other than material nihilism – particularly as it pertains to arguments regarding the mind/brain relationship and near death experiences. In an interview with Alex Tsakiris of Skeptico several years back, he leads into his argument with these critical thesis statements (they are statements, not arguments):3
I don’t doubt that there’s a [Mind≡Brain] phenomena that needs to be explained, but I doubt that the explanation is that the brain is not [the entire source] of the experience that’s being processed [in an NDE]. I cannot conceive of how that would be true. (Embargo by means of premature rationality and appeal to authority – sciebam, or a religion passed off as science)
Discussion about the brain is basically the province of neuroscience.(Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Privation/Province)
My understanding is that the mind is essentially a property of the brain. (Appeal to Self Authority and Rationality)
I don’t see a lot of room for any alternative [Brain⊆Mind] which does not have something to do with [consciousness being constrained solely to] the physiology of the brain [Mind≡Brain]. (Appeal to Embargo as an Appeal to Truth)
~ Psychologist Dr. Gary Marcus, Skeptico, 6 Aug 2015
Please take note ethical skeptic, of the extraordinary amount of ambiguity, authority, and finality in these statements; crafted in such a way so as to appear non-declarative in nature, and posed inside a fake context of objectivity. Never fall for this. This is an appeal to authority, coupled with an appeal to embargo. This would not be a problem if it were merely a personal metaphysical notion, or if this line of thinking were not further then enforced inside Dr. Marcus’ discipline of study. This is where the error occurs.
These are not statements which should pass peer review (however they often do), because of the incumbent ambiguity and lack of epistemological backing. But his meaning inside them is illuminated in the rest of that same interview with Alex Tsakiris. He is both making a final claim to conclusiveness about the nature of mind and brain, and also is making the assertion that he does not have to back up any of these claims. This was very much akin to the ‘it can’t be done’ proclamations of the older scientists in the lab over which I presided earlier in this article.
Since, in this particular deliberation we have two necessary constructs and a constraint in terms of discipline history of study, plurality under Ockham’s Razor therefore, exists. Two valid ‘working hypotheses’ or constructs (placeholders until true hypothesis can be developed) are at play. Notice that I do not encourage embargo of research regarding Dr. Marcus’ preferred construct (I want that idea researched as well). In contrast, he chooses to embargo those ideas of his opposing camp – to use ignorance as a playground for consensus. I am perfectly fine with a [Mind≡Brain] reality. I however, do not want it forced upon me as a religion, nor even worse a religion which is masquerading as science (sciebam).
Our chief problem is when people, who purport to be persons of ‘science’, such as does Dr. Marcus above – try and push a concept or construct, which is not even mature enough to be a true scientific hypothesis, to status as final truth – skipping all the intervening steps. Then they appeal to their authority as a PhD, to make a claim inside a discipline which is either not their home discipline (Plaiting Fallacy), or is a discipline in which everyone has a stake, not just psychologists – metaphysical choice.
Dr. Marcus is therefore a Type I Expert. He cannot appeal to rationality nor authority here – but does so anyway.
Type I: Bowel Movement Expertise
The bowel movement expert (derived from an activity in which everyone is an expert, but some regard that their own expertise therein is superior – a perfect storm of ‘their shit don’t stink’ and ‘don’t know jack shit’) is an advisor inside a subject which is part of everyday life or is commonly experienced by many or most people.
In other words, I am just as much an expert in the construct [Mind≡Brain] as is Dr. Marcus – he cannot ethically bully me with his PhD in Psychology into accepting his religion, no matter the lexicon, no matter the p-values, no matter the confidence intervals. If alternately he demanded that I accept Heaven as a reality, I would object on the same basis of argument. As a skeptic, what I observe is that the materialist is too lazy and agency-insistent to wait for an actual hypothesis of scientific discipline to mature – so they take the concept/construct that our reality is the only possible basal reality (singular, closed I E and M fields, and non-derivative) and enforce it by means of a heavy handed embargo. Such is a mistake of skepticism.
These are the challenges, which a person like me faces, when tasked to manage a legacy scientific effort. The challenges of sciebam.
Einfach Mechanism
/philosophy : skepticism : pseudo-science : alternative reduction/ : an idea which is not yet mature under the tests of valid hypothesis, yet is installed as the null hypothesis or best explanation regardless. An explanation, theory or idea which sounds scientific, yet resolves a contention through bypassing the scientific method, then moreover is installed as truth thereafter solely by means of pluralistic ignorance around the idea itself. Pseudo-theory which is not fully tested at its inception, nor is ever held to account thereafter.
Anomie
/philosophy : ethics : circularity/ : a condition in which a club, group or society provides little or negative ethical guidance to the individuals which inhabit it or craft its direction.
Pluralistic Ignorance
ad populum – a condition wherein the majority of individuals believe without evidence, either that everyone else assents or that everyone else dissents upon a specific idea.
ad consentum – a self-reinforcing cycle wherein wherein the majority of members in a body believe without evidence, that a certain consensus exists, and they therefore support that idea as consensus as well.
ad immunitatem – a condition wherein the majority of individuals are subject to a risk, however most individuals regard themselves to reside in the not-at-risk group – often because risk is not measured.
ad salutem – a condition wherein a plurality or majority of individuals have suffered an injury, however most individuals regard themselves to reside in the non-injured group – often because they cannot detect such injury.
If an idea is not even mature enough to qualify as a scientific hypothesis, it also cannot be installed as truth, no matter how ‘likely’ you regard it to be. Such error is made even worse if that truth comes bundled with an implicit embargo of any competing research (see The Ethical Skeptic’s definition of religion). If Dr. Marcus were to pursue his notions above as just one ‘working hypothesis’, then that would be ethically acceptable – however he is instead enforcing truth as an expert. He is taking a God position.
There exist at least 1700 other Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann’s Spiral of Silence-styled efforts in oppression, on the part of people who have declared themselves to be ‘experts in all that is wrong’, just as Dr. Marcus has done above. We at The Ethical Skeptic oppose such arrogance and false parsimony, even if we end up defending a hypothesis which itself turns out to be false in the end. Being found wrong is informative – being correct, is not. In other words, what we at The Ethical Skeptic object to, is pseudo-science, underpinned by pseudo-skepticism.
What is Pseudoscience? And why we live in a banana republic age of scientific consensus, ruled by SSkeptics.
In the September 2011 Scientific American Skeptic editorial, Michael Shermer tendered, in my opinion, an untenable definition of Pseudoscience. A definition which is crafted to lend legitimacy to the unethical act of classifying subjects a priori into forbidden domains; involving power which appropriates and corrupts the use of peer review and research, making them no longer tools on the part of true experts in a field of study, rather the pretentious actions of controlling social figures and campaigns. A definition which seeks instead to promote science as a form of democratic popularity contest adjudicated by all those appointed the right to vote by the very power wielding SSkeptics themselves. A contest of politics wherein it is the number of people in a social club who have an opinion, and not the data, research and work of the true investigators (see Discovery Science), which determines the tenets of what is considered an acceptable conclusion of science.
All this passed off under the pretense of socially responsible jargon, that somehow this broad non-expert opinion survey constitutes “egalitarian rather than elitist” principles and is “bottom up rather than top down.” In other words “We cannot rely upon people conducting observations and doing research to guide us, we need the vote of our social order, trained through filtered channel propaganda.”
“Let science consumers in the marketplace of ideas determine (vote) what constitutes good science, starting with the scientists themselves and filtering through the editors, educators, and readers. As for potential consumers of pseudoscience (that means everyone), that’s what skeptics are for…” (Michael Shermer, “What is Pseudoscience?”, Scientific American; Vol 305, No. 3; p. 92)
Michael Shermer is wrong here in my opinion. He has not only crafted an non-viable definition of the term pseudoscience, but has assumed a position of power on the part of he and his Cabal, which they do not merit. What is actually practiced is nothing akin to an egalitarian consensus, rather is a Social Technology (a forthcoming blog on why it does not take a conspiracy theory in order for good persons to produce evil outcomes) crafted by those who seek power. SSkeptics develop an iniquitous and incompetent framing of the processes which lead to the presumption of what is and is not pseudoscience. Below I will outline why Pseudoscience, in Ethical Skepticism is an action and a pretense on the part of those claiming to represent science, and not a disposition of a topic by controlling interests. There are five principal fatal problems inherent in defining pseudoscience as a disposition of a topic, tendered by today’s version of democratic science.
Why Pseudoscience is an ACTION and a PRETENSE, and cannot ethically be a research subject, topic, belief or faith
Ethical Problem 1: The Marketplace is informed of the vote results by SSkeptics
If you have ever been to a party, where a scientist will quietly speak his mind on one of the Forbidden 121 topics but mentions that he would never be able to speak in public about such things, nor heaven forbid, actually conduct observations inside the subject, much less do any science – then you know first hand the all-too-common witch hunt mentality which exists inside science today. This witch hunt is not a conspiracy theory, rather a real and damaging zeitgeist crafted by, and painted by the SSkeptic Cabal. The problem with Michael Shermer’s version of the Marketplace of Science , is that the results of the vote, or if you will what is the new fashion rage for this spring, or the results of this year’s Academy Awards of Authorized Science, are informed and presented to the democratic body, by the very SSkeptics themselves. This is a stark conflict of interest. People with a singular religious view, informing people as to what to believe, is not science. “As for potential consumers of pseudoscience (everyone), that’s what skeptics are for…” In other words, we live in a banana republic, where one party informs the voters of the tally of the vote.
And is this party honest? No. In the coming millennium this will not even be in question. As our minds continue to expand and be informed, today’s SSkeptic movement will be replaced by true scientific method and ethics (see The Tower of Wrong).
Ethical Problem 2: The Science ‘Marketplace’ includes a majority of non-expert voters, who are an easy sell for SSkeptics, and who are inappropriately called the ‘scientists themselves’
Ahh, I see. So science is a popularity contest inside a club of non-experts, non-researchers, non-interested persons who simply hold a status and title (“the scientists themselves”). A democracy of popular vote among a constituency of persons who win the right to vote by simply being in the club; and not by having actually conducted real research into the idea in question. Since I have a title, I am deemed able to make pronouncements on any subject I desire, and be counted in the vote. SSkeptics ignore the fact that, in regard to those subjects deemed “pseudosciences” – very few of scientists are actually experts in the subject in question at all.
Corollary 2a. There are far fewer true experts than there are opinionated non-expert voters
There at least 200 sciences comprised by Natural, Social, Medical, Engineering, and Mathematical discipline groupings. This is a very successful focus and career advancement structure. But the weakness therein is that any participant in the body of science intrinsically only holds expertise on .5% to 4% of the given knowledge base. I have spent 30 years pursuing my career subject, replete with 8 years of undergrad and graduate work. I am considered one of the top 3 persons in my field. This as a result of working 6 days a week and 12 to 16 hours a day on the cutting edge of my field. I still do not have an adequate grasp of my field after all this time. It is still not enough for me to begin to dictate what is right inside of sister disciplines. At most I have a 4% grasp on industry as a whole. I am a non-expert on much of my broad science grouping. Understanding this is a key tenet of Ethical Skepticism.
When I observe scientists or SSkeptics pretending to be experts on a broad array of subjects, I KNOW it is a load of baloney. They have not had enough time to gain this insight. It is a pretense and a masquerade.
So, because a group of astronomers, physicists, psychologists, nuclear technologists and mathematicians do not like the idea of a North American Primate, then the subject is given the final fatal disposition of a ‘pseudoscience’ – despite none of the ‘scientists themselves’ (or voters, in this context) in question actually having done ANY research at all into the subject. Couple this with the fact that those who actually DO research, are declared to be not-scientists, or are relegated to and less than SSkeptics’ subjectively convenient “dismissible margin,” and one has witnessed the establishment a social construct. There is a problem, there is a flaw in the system which creates a social order and not a science, when the following state exists in the voting input. This state exists for much of what is deemed “Pseudoscience” by the Social Skeptics:
Sum of Expert Input < Dismissible Margin
Corollary 2b. PhD level or other technicians are often counted in the vote as ‘scientists’
A definitive weakness in the ‘count everyone’s vote’ egalitarian method of science is that we allow the definition of the term ‘scientist’ to include degreed field and research technicians, when indeed these individuals are simply there to follow the guidance, follow the rules, and make sure that everything works. A technician, a PhD level engineer, graduate IT developer, or degreed lab tech, may be called a scientist in slang, but are not really considered expert researchers. They may even hold several advanced degrees. Technicians in most disciplines include psychologists, sociologists, information technologists, human factors engineers, electrical chemical or mechanical engineers, project and program managers, finance managers, lab techs, research aides, statistical analysts, methods analysts, or non-tenured research associates. While I have immense respect for these areas of research and development, they should not typically comprise a part of the base which qualifies as ‘the scientists themselves’ – but you will find people with really 8 years in program management, or 7 years in PhD engineering project roles being called ‘scientists’ – when in fact they are not
Many so called ‘scientists’ really only occupy technician or teaching roles
Technicians beef up the non-expert vote count
Technicians distinguish themselves by being good at following the instructions
You will find more SSkeptics in the Information Technology, Psychology and Engineering realms than you will find in true Science
In reality, technicians make their merit, distinguish themselves in their careers by how well they follow the rules. If you think outside the box, you are not going to do well in an engineering curriculum typically. Laplacian Transformations, Golden Section Algorithms, Reactor Core Design theory development academic proficiencies are all typically programs which demand rigorous rule following, and are not typically designed to encourage the participant to develop new ‘out of context ideas” Having hired and worked with over 400 engineers over the years in profit-based and demanding professional businesses, as well as cutting edge research environs, I have observed this to be very common. Technicians follow the rules. They will spout the dogma. As they move into management they rarely promote maverick thinking, and are rather irritated by it. They will cast their vote the way they are told to vote. That is how they made the cut to begin with.
Ethical Problem 3: The Club voting membership is educated, regulated and qualified solely by those who have an investment in the outcome of the vote
The “editors, educators…and skeptics” role is to filter data and acceptance of voters, so that the outcome they desire is ensured in the popular vote. We have stacked the jury and ensured that we have an OJ Simpson verdict on subjects in which we have conducted NO research whatsoever – simply because we do not like the subject. We have dismissed an idea by popular prejudice, method, education and media propaganda, and not by evidential merit.
I have several excellent scientists working for me. They all maintain pre-concluded presumptions as to the validity and veracity of alternative medicine, human neolithic history, UFO’s and various forms of paranormal data collection. They have been trained to hold these beliefs. They are NOT experts on the subjects, they cannot cite falsification Test 1 on any topic. But SSkeptics would have us all believe that they are fully accepted and qualified members of the voting “scientists themselves.”
Ethical Problem 4: Status declarations imply successful falsifications by science which indeed have never actually been tested for, nor achieved
SSkeptics, often feel that the end game of their duty is to simply provide a Plausible Deniability scenario, when confronted with a challenging piece of evidence or data. This is fake skepticism (see Pseudo-Skeptics: Marcello Truzzi, Founding Co-chairman of CSICOP). While the simplest explanation is certainly an appropriate lead construct in a pluralistic argument, it by no means demarcates the end state of our duty, and it by no means indicates that falsification of all other compelling constructs has been achieved.
Corollary 4a. Seeking anecdotal evidence supporting Plausible Deniability scenarios is NOT science, it is Promotification
I watched a famed SSkeptic stand in as the ‘skeptic’ in a paranormal program the other night. Good job on that for the courageous skeptic, but I guess it is their job to deflect this stuff from the consideration of disdainful academics. The SSkeptic, as a representative of rational SSkepticism, only set up testing protocols to provide evidence of support for a Plausible Deniability scenario he had in mind. This is NOT falsification, does not add value and does not offer clarity in the process. It is not science. Simply establishing that a Plausible Deniability scenario is possible, does not add value to the argument. We need falsification, not propaganda fuel. The SSkeptic will simply find what he is looking for and take that back to reassure his arrogant 15 year olds that all is well. There are no ghosts.
Corollary 4b. Declaring ‘falsifiability’ is not the same thing as being falsified, and only scientific study can prove falsification
But at times SSkeptics break from the Plausible Deniability approach and range back into Falsification Testing. Well, not actually testing. That would require that we actually DO science. SSkeptic semantics shift back to falsification as a demarcating precept. But they typically only choose to focus on “falsifiability” and not the actual status of being “falsified.” A pseudoscience need only possess falsifiability and plausible deniability in order to be condemned by the SSkeptic Cabal on behalf of science. Indeed however, it is the flippant declaration of falsifiability, the swagger of plausible alternatives, and not the actual act of falsification itself which is the tool used by SSkeptics to declare a subject a pseudoscience. Only science can falsify, but science is forbidden access to falsify these topics (see What Constitutes a Religion?).
SSkeptics correctly cite “falsifiability” to be the ultimate criterion of demarcation of a science and non-science. Well, all of these subjects are falsifiable, so why do we forbid their testing by scientists? SSkeptics would dictate that falsification tests need not be conducted, since the ‘scientists themselves’ have already made a conclusion. Because I CAN falsify this, I do not need to. Scientists keep out of this and let the SSkeptics handle it.
This is pseudoscience.
Ethical Problem 5: Once a SUBJECT is deemed (by popular non-expert vote) as a “Pseudoscience,” it can never again be seriously considered despite the existence or introduction of Ockham’s Razor plurality evidence
Deniers!, Pseudoscientist! Pseudoscience! Simplest Explanation!, Woo!, Bunk!, Nonsense!, Witchcraft!, Magic! These are a part of the inventory of Weapon Words which are core to the filtering process which SSkeptics employ. These bear the hallmark employments of thought control and social order establishment. They are the means of control inside a large body of pretend experts on all subjects. They are the bricks of the Kristallnacht of Science. Please refer to the list of the 121 Forbidden Subjects.
The Principle of filtering data “through editors, educators…and skeptics” is an irresponsible configuration of activities which are not science methods, but rather a method of developing propaganda, exclusion and definition of acceptable thought. Agenda sponsors, and those who have control of the media channels imbue their prejudices into the ideas which are then fed through the sole channels available (schools, press, media, publishing, policy, governance, enforcement) to the proletariat membership. This is socialistic in its construction, and is nothing akin to science. Science is not a popular vote, it is not appropriately based on agenda campaigns, nor is it a social order of entitlement, as SSkeptics would have it.
NONE of this is Science. It is pseudo-science in my opinion for two reasons:
a. It boasts specific claims about these subjects sans any research, evidence, or critical epistemology, and
b. It pretends to have employed science in the determination of its conclusions, and that science agrees with its conclusions.
In fact, Pseudoscience can NEVER be a subject, by the tenets of logic alone. Rather it is characterized by actions just like a. and b. above. A subject cannot be declared false by a set of outsiders. Those who condemn a subject to be a pseudoscience, are guilty of unethical, non-scientific practices – and being eventually proved correct does not exonerate the practitioner of such deception. It is merely a technicality.
Indeed, what follows is therefore for the Ethical Skeptic, the only viable definition of pseudoscience:
Ethical Skepticism Definition of Pseudoscience: Pseudoscience is an action, not a subject
Pseudoscience – Disposition of ideas as constituting science or non-science based on their subject matter alone, in lieu of employment of scientific method. A methodology or conclusion which over-relies upon predictive study, confirmation or dismissive skepticism. A claim or conclusion which is presented as current best science or as being derived from the scientific method, when in fact such contentions are false.
The employment of Social Technology control tactics, seeking to dictate singular thought, is Pseudoscience. This is what Michael is proposing in his editorial.
A Scientist is someone actively engaged in research in a given subject, and NOT someone holding a degree or engaged in research in another subject. These contributors add no more value or clarity than outside non-expert opinions; their inclusion can only be used for control. And remember, the goals of the Ethical Skeptic, are value and clarity; not the control of ideas.
Social skepticism is kabuki, the activist-minded abuse of science by means of its underlying philosophical vulnerability, skepticism. An imperious agency which has politicized and enslaved science through teaching weaponized fake skepticism to useful idiots. The social skeptic is a ‘communicator’ who seeks to foment and exploit enmity between the lay public and science.
Failures and agendas in the name of science are not the result of ‘scientism’ per se, as science can never be a teleological ‘-ism’ by its very definition. Science itself is neutral. In similar thought, science delusion, a term coined by Rupert Sheldrake, is the belief that science has already ascertained the principal components of the nature of reality, and that only a small portion of the unknown details remains to be filled in.
Ethical skepticism supports bringing attention to this cognitive mistake on the part of mankind. However, rather than deem such mistakes an error of science, ethical skepticism instead identifies the problem as an imperious social agency which corrupts the common underlying philosophy in defense of science, skepticism. Social skepticism simply put, is the activist-minded exploitation and abuse of science by means of its vulnerable underlying philosophy, skepticism.
1. a form of social activism which seeks abuse of science through a masquerade of its underlying philosophical vulnerability, skepticism. An imperious set of political, social, and religious beliefs which proliferate through teaching weaponized fake skepticism to useful idiots. Agency which actively seeks to foment conflict between science and the lay public, which then exploits such conflict to bolster its celebrity and influence.
2. a form of weaponized philosophy which masquerades as science, science enthusiasm, or science communication. Social skepticism enforces specific conclusions and obfuscates competing ideas via a methodical and heavy-handed science embargo. It promotes charades of critical thought, self aggrandizement and is often chartered to defend corporate/Marxist agendas; all while maintaining a high priority of falsely impugning eschewed individuals and topics. Its philosophies and conclusions are imposed through intimidation on the part of its cabal and cast of dark actors, and are enacted in lieu of and through bypassing actual scientific method. One of the gravest weaknesses of human civilization is its crippling and unaccountable bent toward social coercion. This form of oppression disparages courage and curiosity inside the very arenas where they are most sorely needed.
3. a heady movement which holds a linear inductive hypothesis that that the collective perception of society can be crafted and directed through manipulation of key media, academic, celebrity, and social touchpoints. An oppressive and obfuscating agency tasked to promote specious notions and filter undesired knowledge, opinions, or observations out of the collective gestalt. A hypothesis which then disastrously failed its first major application tests starting in 2020.
An existential hint into the darkness of the human soul and ubiquitous song under the breath of the oblivious – that cynical editorial which solely targets disdained insight, probes only as far as the first convenient niggle, and cowers from the risk and responsibility to winnow the unknown.
Failures with respect to science are the result of flawed or manipulated philosophy of science. When social control, close-hold embargo or conformance agents subject science to a state of being their lap-dog, serving specific agendas, such agents err in regard to the philosophical basis of science, skepticism. They are not bad scientists, rather bad philosophers, seeking a socialized goal. They are social skeptics.
Why is Comprehending This Important?
Marco Zozaya finds his ethics ran counter to the club which celebrated him; New York Times, 2 Apr 2018
If the social skeptic can lead you to believe that things which are scientifically true, were arrived at by means of their flawed philosophy, then they can use that same kabuki philosophy to further then coerce you into accepting things which are not true, are political, religious, economic, or pertain to governing and human rights. The social skeptic therefore is a kind of catalyseur, a third party exploitation specialist driving a wedge between the public and science (see example on right).1 They are not scientists inside those arenas they choose to target, nor do they typically bear experience in deductive research. They do not pursue insight into any specific matter; rather, they seek to twist the principles of skepticism such that they just happen to rule outalternatives and embargoed ideas which threaten the self-identifying skeptic and their cronies.
Although they talk about it incessantly, you will rarely find a social skeptic applying ‘critical thinking’ to their own favored ideas – only those they disdain.
Ignorance is not a ‘lack of knowledge’ but is rather a verb, meaning ‘a cultivated quiescence before an idea or group which has become more important to protect than science, human rights, well-being, and life itself.’
The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie–deliberate, contrived and dishonest–but the myth–persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
~ President John F. Kennedy, Commencement Address at Yale University, June 11 1962
The greatest opponent of the scientist is not the ever-questioning and mercurial conspiracy theorist, but rather the constant drone of the supposed yet clueless ally – the explainer and enforcer, propagandizing as dogma, decades-old and now mostly falsified or suspect science.
~ The Ethical Skeptic
Instead of investigators involved in curious inquiry, they interpret the purpose of skepticism to be promoting cultivated ignorance controversialism. They seek compensation and salve for some past emotional offense, through the process of belittling others and being hailed by their club for how clever they can appear or how many of the enemy they can harm. Their legacy is often iatrogenic – one for which they do not bear even an inkling of guilt, because they are convinced that they represent reason and science. Therefore, they are justified in ignoring their deeper stultification on what is considered truth. They ‘establish’ their method correctness by armchair or social debunking ghosts, homeopathy, Bigfoot and UFO’s and then ply this religiously-pitched false-method (humbly deeming it as a mechanism of ‘best evidence’) into directing what everyone else can do with their body, doctor, voting, research, thoughts, nation, open-mind, rights, political choices, faith choice and their health.
Narrative Ninny – a simpleton who believes that automatically adhering to what they have heard is the ‘official truth’, exhibits a superior level of erudition on their part, along with an exclusive monopoly in scientific reason. A fool who is conditioned to be automatically vulnerable to authoritative deception or an official narrative, who habitually allies with any apparent position of power, and is willing to incrementally prevaricate because the virtue of their cause more than makes up for their lie in support of it. A repetitive process passed from Narrative Ninny to Narrative Ninny, through which a stack of such (permissible) lies transforms into The Narrative. The opposite of a conspiracy theorist, save for their holding a reality shaped by zero research or logic in support their ‘position’.
All this, confirmed no better than by ‘Skeptics in the Pub’, a social skeptic organization in New Zealand.2
They call themselves ‘skeptics’ – preferring the US spelling – and see themselves as watchdogs at the crossroads between science and consumer protection.
They think carefully and logically (i.e. conduct no science) about a subject, and use the best evidence available to reach a judgment.When someone makes an extraordinary claim, they demand it’s backed up with extraordinary evidence. Faith doesn’t cut it.“It sort of feels like ‘skeptics’ is the wrong name for us,” says Wiles. “We’re not skeptics, we’re critical thinkers. When we see a piece of information, we ask, maybe even unintentionally?'” The New Zealand skeptics movement began one February afternoon in 1986, when seven academics from around the country decided to form a club.
Notice in the Skeptics in the Pub description the heavy implication of having means to access acumen and information which you do not. A boast which is never backed with actual science and plenary evidence, aside from an apothegm or two, and a couple ignoratio elenchi tidbits they will spin as ‘facts’. They enforce this through the intimidation of emulating a government agency ‘close-hold embargo’ – a form of tacit intimidation wherein you will be vilified as irrational and anti-science, unless you agree with their beliefs. If you agree with their beliefs, you will be afforded socially visible tacit approval or neutrality. This is how fake skepticism works. It is Orwellian 1984-style social coercion.
Fake Skepticism (Methodical Cynicism)
Fake and celebrity skeptics generally define skepticism as a set of various self-licensed forms of scoffing, doubt, disposition promulgation, comprehensive denial of knowledge (de rigueur bullshit to appear academic in pedigree), criticism targeting only disdained objects or systematic culling of ‘wrong’ evidence – all under the authority of skeptics or scientists (they do not possess mere mortal opinion). Generally any weaponized philosophy which allows them to dismiss that which threatens them, and keep that specific conclusion which they want to enforce on you. The goal being to issue a final disposition as quickly and as devastatingly as possible. In other words the exact opposite of skepticism, methodical cynicism.
To wit, these versions of poseur skepticism as defined by Skeptical Raptor, David Gorski in his propaganda blog (please note the last highlighted item constitutes an illuminating circular appeal to authority):4
an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particularobject;
the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain; or
the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics.
Not one of the expressions in red pertains to true skepticism by any stretch of the imagination. In other words, they employ the very prejudices and practices which Moon landing skeptics, flat-Earthers, and 9/11 truthers use to raise question inside clearly settled subjects bearing overwhelming evidence. Those who undertake Antifa-styled public vilification, charades of critical thinking, and court defined malice and oppression all in the name of science. A Gorskisser wouldn’t know science if it sat on their face and p-valued. Science to them, is nothing but a cudgel and means of leverage to rulership. Closely watch their patterns of idea suppression, topical disdain, and personal hatred of targeted individuals. This species of obtuse and arrogant princess culture overlaps heavily with Nietzsche’s bildungsphilister class of activist, a subset of the anomie of this entire arrogant club.
Bildungsphilister
/philosophy : rhetoric : pretender/ : a philistine possessed of a facile, cosmetic culture. Someone who reads articles and reviews and imagines themselves to be cultured and educated but lacks genuine, critical or introspective erudition. Nitzsche’s name for the pseudo-intellectual class of social activist. Bildungsphilisters are prone to dogmatic, cliched, and unsubtle responses to events and things. An activist who sees a majority vote which goes their way as ‘democracy’ and one which does not as ‘populism’. One who sees arguments which indicate their view, as being scientific, and those which do not, as pseudoscientific. Political and scientific constructs are mere artifices to be used and cast aside when not to their advantage. They wallow in rhetoric, apothegm and bear the inability to discern sophistry; vulnerable yet to it. A member of social skepticism or Nassim Taleb’s Intellectual Yet Idiot (IYI) class.
Goodhart’s Law of Skepticism: Once you self-identify as ‘representing scientists, science or skepticism’ – you cease to be any of those things.
Anomie – a condition in which a club, group or society provides little or negative ethical guidance to the individuals which inhabit it or craft its direction.
“Whenever you have someone who is a professional skeptic, you should be suspicious of them.” ~ Deepak Chopra
Moreover, if this were all simply a fever of individual stupidity, it would still be harmless as a social factor. Unfortunately for mankind, such is not the case.
The rules are simple: they lie to us, we know they’re lying, they know we know they’re lying, but they keep lying to us, and we keep pretending to believe them. ~Elena Gorokhova, A Mountain of Crumbs
From Bildungsphilister to Cabal
A cabal is detected not through their unity in message, but rather their unity in ignorance. A cabal is a consensus of ignorance.
A social philosopher once said “I do not fear robots thinking like humans, as much as I fear humans thinking like robots.” Indeed social skeptics mindlessly function inside a false philosophical construct stemming from either an inability to understand the philosophy underlying science, or suffering from being mis-taught its principles.
Social skepticism is the philosophical basis of agenda-generated false authoritative representations (a.k.a, ‘agency‘) of the conclusions of science (pseudoscience is the pretense of representing science). This is why it most often surfaces inside its use by science communicators and science enthusiasts. This errant philosophy employs questionable a priori abduction combined with stacked risky provisional inductive reasoning, both employed as a masquerade of science method in order to enforce a belief set as being based upon science, when in reality it is not.
Social skepticism is a sponsored activist movement on the part of a self appointed bien pensant; those who function as an integral part of the socially engineered mechanisms attempting to dominate human thought, health, welfare and education. This domination serving as means to a twisted and extreme form of epistocracy; a subjugation of all mankind’s value under mandated totalitarian institutions. Institutions which avert legal exposure by abusing skepticism to serve their goals. Ends formulated by a social elite; however, which stand threatened by innate elements of mankind’s being and background.
Skeptics have had to be taught how to behave over the last 20 years in particular. As a result of their malpractices so-called fringe ideas, both valid and invalid, have grown dramatically in subscribership. If such a fringe subject bears validity, then of course its cynics were always in error. If however, the fringe subject is invalid, its ensuing popularity too is the fault of the pseudo skeptic – and for the same reasons.
Fake moon landing and flat earth proponents have learned to employ the very same methods whichhave been taught by fake skepticism in the targeting of disliked ideas over the last 60 years. The chickens of failed philosophy have come home to roost – and the blame for this resides squarely with our floundering skeptics.
Most of the so-called skeptics who influence media and seek to intimidate scientists, sponsors and researchers today, are not skeptics at all. Rather they are the opposite of a skeptic, an apparatchik – a blindly devoted official, follower, or organization member, of a corporation, club or political party. One who either ignorantly or obdurately lacks any concern or circumspection ability which might prompt them to examine the harm their activities may serve to cause. One who seeks the celebrity boost incumbent through fomenting conflict between media and science versus the general public whom those entities ostensibly serve.
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of…in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.
~ Propaganda, Edward Bernays
Individuals expressing belief superiority—the belief that one’s views are superior to other viewpoints—perceive themselves as better informed about that topic… [However} Despite perceiving themselves as more knowledgeable, knowledge assessments revealed that the belief superior exhibited the greatest gaps between their perceived and actual knowledge. When given the opportunity to pursue additional information in that domain, belief-superior individuals frequently favored agreeable over disagreeable information, but also indicated awareness of this bias.5
~ Raimi-Hall Belief Superiority Study
False skeptics bear the habit of forming negative impact, fake informative, social intimidation clubs, often enlisting the aid of angry punks or academics pretending/wishing to possess the credibility of a scientist. They seek to issue appeal to authority scientific conclusions, without conducting any scientific method, and then issue such claims to the public, preemptively in lieu of and as if on behalf of science.
Philosophy, including skepticism, cannot step in and act on behalf of science. This is a critical tenet of scientific philosophy. Science is a method, based upon a discipline of thought and accrued-active direct observation, and is never legitimately conducted through armchair or social rationalization under the guise of ‘critical thinking’.
These fakers straw man that every scientific inquiry outside of their club’s ‘judgements’, authorizations to study and self confirmed authority, constitutes an act of ‘belief’. ‘Pseudosciences’ or ‘extraordinary claims’ they call these unauthorized actions and domains. They believe that a judgement must be reached on every matter of inquiry, in the here and now and by means of only the paltry evidence one already holds. These final conclusive claims of fake skeptics are conducted in lieu of science, mostly adopted in absence of any evidence whatsoever, and are not plied simply upon the upon claims themselves. The ultimate goal is to ply them imperiously to discredit the topic, the sponsors, the victims, the public, wayward scientists, and any budding scientists who might consider unauthorized ideas. This constitutes malice and a corruption of science in the public trust.
Through a straw man of science, skeptics seek to foment conflict between the public and science – a state wherein their club gains authority and scientists are perceived as the denial-enemy. An enemy which you must fear, mistrust and marginalize. Upon sensing this, scientists begin to see the public as a frothing, anti-science horde, who cannot fathom what they have to say, and must be ignored.
Social skepticism is an ideologue driven enforcement of various social epistemologies crafted to obfuscate mankind’s understanding of reality, science and such innate elements of its being. Its members practice a form of vigilante bullying, employed in lieu of science to dismiss disliked subjects, persons, and evidence before they can ever see the light of scientific day. Seeking to establish as irrefutable truth a core philosophy of material monism, dictating that only specific authorized life physical and energy domains exist. A comprehensive program of enforcement sought accordingly, through rather than the risk of ethical scientific methodology, instead a practice of preemptive methodical cynicism and provisional knowledge which underpins an embargo policy regarding, cultivates ignorance and institutionalizes intimidation surrounding any subject which could ostensibly serve as a pathway to falsify their power enabling illusory religion of Nihilism.
“…-here is the key take-away: it’s not about ideas or ideologies anymore; it’s purely about the pleasures of coercion, of pushing other people around.”6
~James Howard Kunstler, “Beyond Cynicism: America Fumbles Towards Kafka’s Castle”
Doubt Abused to Cultivate Ignorance
Social skepticism is a club, bearing an agenda which employs Bernaysian Engineering of Beliefs; leveraging fake a priori deduction methods combined with biased and risk-bearing stacked provisional abductive reasoning, both employed as a masquerade of science method in order to enforce on the general public, a belief set as being scientific, when it is not. It is an abuse of Cartesian Doubt as a racket of a priori, simplistic, provisional, risk-ignorant knowledge, self delusion and methodical cynicism. It seeks an embargo of certain aspects of man’s knowledge development process.
It rejects Philosophical Skepticism and employs Empirical Skepticism only when its tenets support specific knowledge embargo agendas. Instead of tendering mute disposition on any topic which science has not studied, Social skepticism corrupts science into Methodical Cynicism employed to squelch such research and enforces false interpretations of scientific conclusions to support its embargo goals. The following is extracted from the Eight Tropes of Ethical Skepticism about the habits of humanity towards knowledge and control. These most negative of human traits stand indeed as the characteristic pitfalls of social skepticism:
IV. Even what we do know is filtered through the lens of Machiavellian desires for supreme power, unless we take action to prevent such.
V. The corrupt nature of human social intelligence is to construct elaborate contrivances of (self) deception; to constrain and expire itself inside the actions of methodical cynicism, provisional knowledge and ignorance, if left unchecked.
Methodical Cynicism – a method of cultivating ignorance through corruption of the process which regulates our social and scientific understanding. The exploitation of denial mandating a personal belief set while at the same time tendering an affectation of science.
Provisional Knowledge – the contrivance of a series of purposed provisional arguments, into a stack of probable explanations wherein we ignore the increasing unlikelihood of our conclusions and simply consider the stack of plurality to be plausible; and eventually by Neuhaus’s Law, rendering any other idea proscribed.
Ignorance – the action of blinding one’s self to an eschewed reality through a satiating and insulating culture and lexicon.
These are the three tools of social skepticism. It is a pretender philosophy, seeking to mask itself with science and academia, and hoping to convince the public at large that it represents the conclusions of society therein.
Social skepticism is a corruption of the public trust. No different than political corruption, it functions via a masque of legitimacy, which belies an underbelly of nefarious activity and flawed method. Not all the conclusions of those in the social skepticism movement are wrong. In fact most of the movement’s conclusions to date regarding true science are indeed correct. It is however, the method employed to derive those conclusions which is corrupt and not the conclusions themselves. All mafia’s will demonstrate acts of charity and highly touted correctness in order to tender an appearance of legitimacy. But it is the methods of their gaining and keeping power, which differentiate a mafia from a group operating inside the public trust.
The methods of social skepticism support specific institutions, a specific religion called nihilism and specific form of post-democratic government called tyflocracy. The movement employs correct answers as a lure, science as a costume and push slogan driven justifications of a flawed method of knowledge development. A method which transfers power from the hands of science and the public, directly into their hands alone.
The Corrupt Backbone of Social Skepticism
The cartel which resulted employs false methods of skepticism which exploit candidate member youthful anger for recruiting purposes. Their rejection of religion, establishment and/or the paranormal is utilized as a method of screening, unifying and training of those who are most susceptible to indoctrination into this activist pathway. Crafting ideologues 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 science’. Activists of sufficient academic intelligence to be able to understand some science, develop a simple argument and regurgitate short idea concepts or apothegms in journal, skepticism or media channels. Rational, yet still not intelligent enough to observe a game of counter intelligence nor their role therein. Energized, yet not energized enough to actually delve into real research regarding their requisite quiver of agenda items and positions.
This prostituting of smart-but-dumb players, Nassim Taleb’s Intelligent Yet Idiot class, is a common tradecraft in intelligence circles. It is the essence of modern skepticism today.
In its most concise definition, social skepticism is the deontologically correct moniker for the group of social epistemologists, bearing a group psychology and religious motivation behind methods of Hyper and Hypo Epistemology. These social epistemologies are practiced by members of social skepticism, who are called social skeptics. Social skepticism derives its name from the similar set of practices employed by the political-counter-intelligence socialist control agencies of Eastern Europe (KI, Okhrana, AVH or East German Stasi), during the 1953 – 1983 era of the Cold War. They combine these social control methodologies with effective tactics of oppressive Abrahamism which they observe as their precedent. It is an organized method of Social Engineering Tradecraft characterized by specific and consistent actions, proven effective in Cold War era or socialist societies, which now resides at the core of modern American social skepticism. While not all individual social skeptics practice this entire list of unethical actions, the group as a whole orchestrates it, with various members performing different tasks:
informal organizations never held to public or peer accountability
staffed by a variety of non-science persons who volunteer time extra-professionally
claiming to represent correctness or the well being of the people
organized and personal public and celebrity ridicule tactics, attacks, defamation and tortious interference
attempts to blackmail, approach employers, publicly humiliate or anonymously harass
‘investigators’ pretending to do scientific inquiry
academic celebrity promotion, agent, and publicist employment
scientific method masquerades, pretense of representing science
propaganda one liners, catch phrases, weapon words and circular recitations
domination of education unions and systems
enforcement of informal professional penalties for dissent
funded legal intimidation of those who dissent
squelching of free speech through warnings to media and celebrity intimidation
enlisting the aid of government agencies to enforce data screening
proselytization of children and intimidation of teachers
screening and qualification of those allowed into science and technical academia
media forum and publication channel policing and monitoring and
intimidation, monitoring and control of scientists and researchers
The Nature of Malevolence – Science as Means of Control
Social skepticism at its root both is, and stems from, an active shortfall in integrity. It is motivated by ten particular psychologies of anger, emotional impairment and the desire for revenge and control. It is often (but differs by individual practitioner of course) exclusively, politically motivated, crony mafia network connected, anti-capital, pro-oligopoly, pro-monopoly, pro-academic, anti-individualist, anti-free enterprise, pro-information control, and pro-social economics and institutions. Make no mistake, this is the heart and soul of Western social skepticism today. It is crafted to promote through the guise of atheism, a lie of allegiance masking a distinctly different mandatory religion, Nihilsm. A religion which seeks to dominate mankind for the benefit of a specific Oligarchy – a goal which is no different than any mainline religion.
In similar fashion to the tactic of falsely employing atheism to mask a religious agenda of Nihilism, Social skeptics falsely employ the guise of skepticism as a means of controlling the professional and social discourse of science, and control access to the scientific method. The key difference between social skepticism and true skepticism resides in this:
Ethical Skeptics apply skepticism as one of a set of tools employed inside a life characterized by open curiosity, discipline, observation. They continually investigate in order to ask the right question in accordance with the scientific method; not defend the right answer. They bear paramount, the personal and professional ethic of defending the integrity of the knowledge development process. Skepticism is a way of preparing the mind and data sets, in order to accomplish science.
Social skeptics adorn skepticism as a pseudo-identity, apply intimidation and doubt only to subjects they disdain, and enforce an embargo regarding any and all observations or science which might serve to undermine their Cabal authorized ontology. They eschew data collection; instead undertaking social activism and unethical activity, any means necessary to enforce the ‘right answer’ and secure the power of their sponsor institutions. Social skeptics abuse skepticism to act in lieu of science, not as subset thereof.
Skeptical thought practices are fine, and the mental discipline is a useful technique in science. I contend that many social skeptics have not fully evaluated the net negative effect, long term, of their actions. At a first layer acumen, they believe they are adding value to society. I contend that the correctness gain they impart is not worth the value loss we suffer. An example definition, which elicits this ethical contrast so well, is often cited as the definition of ‘skepticism’ by members of the propaganda push network:
“Skepticism is an approach to evaluating claims that emphasizes evidence and applies tools of science.”
This is abjectly false, as philosophy cannot be exploited to countermand, evaluate in lieu of, nor decide matters on behalf of science. The purpose of philosophy is to discipline mindset, not dictate epistemological conclusions.
One should investigate the unexplained, not feign science in order to explain the uninvestigated.
Skepticism is no such thing. Even if it were the legitimate role of philosophy, to act in lieu of science, which it is not – skepticism features no mechanisms of peer review through which to constrain the ‘conclusions’ of those seeking power or possessing the desire to abuse and harm others. For these reasons, only science can evaluate claims.
Real skepticism is a way of preparing the mind to do actual science. One cannot solve the world’s perplexities through simply skepticism and critical thinking. This is a ruse. The above definition affords the social skeptic the tacit luxury of making judgements without evidence, rigor or method; and pretending to speak on behalf of science – when in fact no science has actually been done at all. It is a form of vigilante bullying, employed to dismiss evidence before it can ever see the light of science.
Moreover, just because the conclusion may turn out to be right in the end, does not qualify the practice used to derive it as being scientific. That errant practice can further then be used for malicious lobbying on behalf of special interests or to squelch topics which threaten those interests. This compromise in philosophy runs pandemic in the modern social skepticism movement, relegating its practitioners to the role of unwitting pawns.
Many other social skeptics do not practice skepticism at all, rather acting as posers who have clung onto science as a personal masque over the effort to maintain the perch of correctness, to be right at all costs, in an effort to insulate themselves from subjects which threaten them. This as much as anything, an attempt to protect repressed emotional conflicts, and exercise a personal preference toward institutional violation of the mind as a self-punishing sacrifice of personal integrity. Some repress a hatred for people on the opposite end of the political spectrum; legitimizing this hate through tendering the appearance of scientific correctness and authority. All of this coalesces into a socialized structure of tyranny.
Social skeptics rely upon the certainty that no one will hold them accountable, nor will history recall their ill intended work; yet the Cabal will tender them glory and celebrate the brilliance of their one-liners today. Their self-purported value in improving the quality of science is in reality, limited.
Discourse with a social skeptic is less about the topic and more about avenues of personal disdain, which club they can categorize you into, followed by an exercise in self-aggrandizement on the part of the role-playing social skeptic. They are neither accountable to their victims, nor do they hold each other to standards of conduct and peer review.
An unethical social cabal, who’s detriment in obscuring and blocking breaking science, far outweighs their scant value in armchair target debunking the same 768 subjects over and over again. Their vociferous levels of disdain and smug insistence are indicative of and in direct proportion to the unsettling lack of integrity which privately haunts their conscience; their will broken by institutional violation of the mind.
Unfortunately it is we the public and the science community who suffer, victims of their imposed system of social finality. Yes social skeptics practice pseudoscience. But employment of that broad term is not specific enough to enable enlightenment of the minds of the victims (scientists and the lay public). The broader term fails to distinguish and illuminate the specific methods of pseudoscience involved in their specialized forms of deception, as distinct from the general actions of mystical bunk peddling, fake claims to having employed the scientific method, or pretense of representing science.
We end now with the ‘Ten Pillars’ – the key motivation behind this specialized form of psychopathy.
I. Social Category and Non-Club Hatred II. Narcissism and Personal Power III. Promotion of Personal Religious Agenda IV. Emotional Psychological Damage/Anger V. Overcompensation for a Secret Doubt VI. Fear of the Unknown VII. Effortless Argument Addiction VIII. Magician’s Deception Rush IX. Need to Belittle Others X. Need to Belong/Fear of Club Perception
In the September 2011 Scientific American Skeptic editorial, Michael Shermer tendered, in my opinion, an untenable definition of Pseudoscience. A definition which is crafted to lend legitimacy to the unethical act of classifying subjects a priori into forbidden domains; involving power which appropriates and corrupts the use of peer review and research, making them no longer tools on the part of true experts in a field of study, rather the pretentious actions of controlling social figures and campaigns. A definition which seeks instead to promote science as a form of democratic popularity contest adjudicated by all those appointed the right to vote by the very power wielding SSkeptics themselves. A contest of politics wherein it is the number of people in a social club who have an opinion, and not the data, research and work of the true investigators (see 
If you have ever been to a party, where a scientist will quietly speak his mind on one of the 
Ahh, I see. So science is a popularity contest inside a club of non-experts, non-researchers, non-interested persons who simply hold a status and title (
SSkeptics, often feel that the end game of their duty is to simply provide a 
