The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

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;

“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;

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;”

³  “Democracy’s Laboratory,” The Work of Michael Shermer, September 2010; Scientific American;

†  Social Skeptic Organizations Directly Compensated by Pharmaceutical Companies:

‡  Unsafe at Any Speed: Industry Response, Wikipedia; extracted 21 Sep 2015:

July 7, 2015 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism | , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

In Defense of Social Skeptics

in defense ofAs I have often stated, for the most part I do not wish to come down on a side in a particular valid conflict of observation, rather only speak up and outline deceptive methods, when I observe surreptitious behavior on the part of Social Skeptics. I usually do not elicit a position on an argument unless some aspect of Social Skepticism seeks to defend a group which has harmed me or my family through their activity. Once I have shown, as I have through exhaustive method and observation, that certain food for instance, has harmed my health, and the health of my spouse and children significantly – I will be very vocal on this position, as a side issue. That will run as a kind of exception to the ethos of my blog, which is more focused on critiquing errant methodology, masquerading as science.
But what does not often come through in my diatribes, is the fact that I often and most frequently agree with the contentions of those in the Social Skepticism movement. This is not in question, as most of their ideology is founded on real science.
My hackles are stirred when the boundary of what is considered to be science is purposely blurred in order to sell a new religion, to replace the old one.  Now, that being said, the old religion is being replaced for good reason.
And from time to time I need to point out that Social Skeptics are at the forefront of replacing that religion – and it is a war. They often do bravely bear the brunt of unethical activity by those who are seeking to defend the old religion.
Michael Shermer in the Twitter graphic here Tweet-cites a very cogent and cohesive address by Christopher Hitchens, a competent apologetic defense of his lifelong stance against monotheism. Unfairly, Michael is attacked by a minion inside the cadre of theists seeking to enforce their view of god on everyone else. I stand with Michael Shermer on this issue. Our planet suffers from the violence, intransigence and fatalistic/apocalyptic teachings of Abrahamic religions which have ruled mankind for the last 3600 years. I disagree with Social Skeptics that Nihilism is the bifurcated solution, as that religion carries its own set of perilous powers, which will be unquestionably wielded by the wrong hands as well. Nor do I completely reject the idea of a natural spiritual/dimensional aspect of our realm. Science has not shown anything, predictive, falsifying, aggregating, or otherwise of any kind to the pro or con, and remains mute on the topic. Therefore as a skeptic, I hold that argument open. The popular understanding that we are not offered a false dilemma, and that one does not have to choose Nihilism, upsets many Social Skeptics who angrily seek to enforce that religion as scientific truth.  But then again, when you are defending a religion, as you see in the graphic above, anger will prompt a host of actions of poor character.
But in the meantime, not that Michael Shermer needs me to defend him, but this set of tweet responses is absolutely unfair, unethical and uncalled for. Michael is fighting the good fight here.
He is a decent man. It is just, as a skeptic I cannot simply swallow 100% of his religious choice until science has had adequate time to examine the issues more exhaustively.

August 15, 2014 Posted by | Argument Fallacies, Ethical Skepticism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What is Pseudoscience?

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.

The final declaration of an IDEA as pseudoscience, rather than a set of actions, means that we can never recover from a mistake in the popular vote, contrived by those with less-than-honorable intent.  We become the victims of the surreptitious among us. It does not matter that much of The Periodic Table of Irrational Nonsense promoting rationality through ridicule (from © 2010 by Crispian Jago) depicted at the right, is correct.  The issue is the incorrect methodology employed to arrive at its conclusions, the social method employed to enforce those dispositions and the great probability that it is incorrect on some of this ridicule material. This type of gilt-edged fakery constitutes a net loss to mankind.

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.

March 26, 2014 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments


Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: