The Ex Post Facto Mindset of the Predator

The signature actions of the predator cannot be hidden. When a person desires to excuse their evil deeds done to another, these six ex post facto elements will often become the justifying factors the predator affixes in their mind.

The Ethical Skeptic
Celebrating 1 Million Page Views

The predator does not think in terms of what actions will serve to clarify, add value, nor alleviate suffering or risk (ethical skepticism). The pathological predator (fake skeptic, debunker, troll, stalker, virtue signaler, pedophile, groomer, exploiter, thief, abuser, poison purveyor, science poseur, and Party apparatchik) thinks in terms of weakness and identifying a party whom they can harm. The sociopath predator allows a third-party agency which co-occupies their mind, to dictate their thinking for them – egging them onward and simultaneously then accusing and justifying them thereafter. Such torment mandates the keeping of appearances. Accordingly, the sociopath is often a person who is well-groomed in terms of social affability and acceptable protocol. After all, this is what the third-party voice has been training them to be sensitive to their entire lives. However, while this voice hides amidst the social conformity, the signature actions of the predator themself cannot be hidden. These can be viewed through the lens of their method of ex post facto action-to-rationalization, as outlined herein.

ex post facto – rationalized or formulated after an event, often so as to frame, explain, or justify it and/or avert accountability.

I Didn’t Kill Her, I ‘Ended Her Life’

Most people are aware of the tragic murder of Gabby Petito by her fiancée and travel companion, Brian Laundrie sometime in late August of 2021. Gabby Petito’s family reported her missing on September 11th, weeks after she last spoke with them by phone.  After murdering Gabby, Brian Laundrie returned home on September 1st to North Port, Florida where the couple had lived, with no sign of his fiancée. Authorities recovered their travel van on September 11th, and began a forensic examination of the vehicle.

Laundrie never acknowledged his guilt in the murder, even to the very last note he left, one outlining how Gabby had died (the text of the note can be seen here). In his suicide ‘confession’ are displayed the trappings of the pathological predator – in style, element, and rationalization. Accordingly and sadly, one may observe that Laundrie remained a predator to the very end.

While most pathological predators will not go to the extreme of murdering a loved one, there are certain signature elements of rationalization which the predator personality, the troll, the stalker, the debunker, the harasser, the assassin, and the self-absorbed cynic, employ to justify their actions after the fact. This is called ex post facto rationalization. When a person desires to excuse their evil deeds done to another, these will often become the justifying factors the predatory affixes in their mind. Their thinking constantly revolves around the motive, ‘How can I justify what I want to do here, after the fact, and make myself look good to a third party (see ‘repentance’ below)? These signature elements follow, exemplified by excerpts from Brian Laundrie’s suicide ‘confession’ (in blue text).

The Predator is Really the True Victim

This is the only context in which the predator will address the subject of themself. They will make an attempt to garner the sympathy/empathy of a third party viewing audience. Their rights were violated, they were understandably infuriated, they are the center of the universe – how dare anyone broach their princely or princess status. They know that they cannot sway the opinion of those harmed, and the reality is that they couldn’t care less about that. The true priority is how the predator is viewed by a third party. This ever-presence of the proxy third-party viewpoint inside their head, reveals an enormous pathology in lack of regard for both action and victim. This can often mistakenly be viewed as ‘social intelligence’ by those who fail to understand the nature of this type of self-deception. This is why the autistic/Asperger’s mind is often viewed as socially inept – as it fails to maintain these self-watching, socially honed, and self-deceiving traits.

I wish I was right at your side, I wish I could be talking to you right now. I’ve lost every day we could’ve spent together. Every holiday. I’ll never get to play with [unintelligible] again. Never go hiking with TJ. Knowing that everyday you’ll wake up without [Gabby], you wouldn’t want to wake up. I carried her as far as I could down the stream towards the car, stumbling exhausted in shock, when my knees buckled and knew I couldn’t safely carry her. But from the moment I decided, took away her pain, I knew I couldn’t go on without her.

Demandé des Ennuis

French for ‘(they) begged for trouble or left me no choice’ – the predator will manufacture or fantasize in their mind, the excuse that their victim really wanted this or was begging for it and that they therefore, had no option but to enact righteous harm. This serving to of course justify their actions as a reasonable response to the victim’s provocation; harm which they had conducted or intended to conduct from very beginning, but were simply waiting for the right excuse to blame it upon. (Note that this is not the same circumstance as self defense)

When I pulled Gabby out of the water she couldn’t tell me what hurt. She had a small bump on her forehead that eventually got larger. Her feet hurt, her wrist hurt [notice the autoaufheben appeal here as compared to the claim in the previous sentence] but she was freezing, shaking violently, while carrying her she continually made sounds of pain, laying next to her she said little lapsing between violent shakes, gasping in pain, begging for an end to the pain. I ended her life, I thought it was merciful, that it is what she wanted…

Quo Facto Malo

Latin for ‘having done this evil’ – the predator will manufacture or fantasize in their mind, offenses, subtle mistakes, weaknesses, or violations their target has committed, which serve to therefore justify their actions or caused them to come to fruition. Harm which they knew of, had conducted, or intended to conduct from very beginning, but were simply waiting for the right excuse to blame it upon. Offenses can be as simple as what time of the day the victim uses the restroom, subtleties of when they use a semicolon versus a comma, or any perception of violation the predator can manufacture or intimate. To the pathological mind, it does not matter. An offense is an offense. Their righteousness has been violated and punishment is now due – a debt which cannot be shirked (note: they are the keeper of ‘the ledger’, and this itself is revealing).

She would fall asleep and I would shake her awake fearing she shouldn’t close her eyes if she had a concussion. She would wake in pain start the whole painful cycle again while furious that I was the one waking her. She wouldn’t let me try to cross the creek, thought like me that this fire would go out in her sleep and she’d freeze …she was so thin, had already been freezing too long [please note again the autoaufheben appeal wherein he later claims he had no idea the extent of her injuries].

Force Majeure

French for ‘superior or major intervening force or factor’. All aspects of the predator’s actions, which cannot be examined or attributed to them by means of direct evidence, will be conveniently explained by an exceptional and natural factor which was out of their control. This scope includes the predator’s temporary state of confusion, panic, substance abuse, intoxication, insanity, or uncertainty – all forces of course, of a completely understandable nature (inside the play-act the predator has assembled to deceive themself as to the justafiability of their actions).

Rushing back to our car trying to cross the streams of Spread Creek before it got too dark to see, to cold. I hear a splash and a scream. I could barely see, I couldn’t find her for a moment, shouted her name. I found her breathing heavily gasping my name, she was freezing cold. We had just come from the blazing hot National Parks in Utah. The temperature had dropped to freezing and she was soaking wet. I carried her as far as I could down the stream towards the car, stumbling exhausted in shock, when my knees buckled and knew I couldn’t safely carry her. I started a fire and spooned her as close to the heat, she was so thin, had already been freezing too long. I couldn’t at the time realize that I should’ve started a fire first but I wanted her out of the cold back to the car. From where I started the fire I had no idea how far the car might be [notice avoidance of the objective framing ‘how far the car was’]. Only knew it was across the creek.

An Enormous Hidden Conceit

The predator will make a concerted effort to ensure that he is not viewed as confident (conceited), as conceit is the habit of the narcissist – and narcissists are automatically guilty in the eyes of their mental ‘third-party’ observer. Remember, this ever-presence of the judging proxy third-party viewpoint inside their head, reveals an enormous pathology in lack of regard for both action and victim. Squelching of one’s own social sins therefore is his or her first priority. The predator will conflate confidence and conceit as being a single thing, and therefore mistakenly feign a lack of confidence as if it indicated their lack of conceit. Take this as a flag of warning, as in “I’m just a good ole boy, nuthin’ special here…” A ‘good ole boy’ is neither a boy, humble, nor good.

“If a man thinks he is not conceited, he is very conceited indeed.”
― C.S. Lewis

“I’m not conceited. Conceit is a fault and I have no faults.”
― David Lee Roth

“Nothing offends the narcissist more, than observing narcissism in their intended victim. To never refer to one’s self (save as a the humble victim) therefore, is a habit of highest conceit.”
― The Ethical Skeptic

I rushed home to spend any time I had left with my family. I wanted to drive north and let James or TJ kill me but I wouldn’t want them to spend time in jail over my mistake, even though I’m sure they would have liked to. I am ending my life not because of a fear of punishment [a confession of the actual motivation] but rather because I can’t stand to live another day without her. I’m sorry for everyones loss. Please do not make life harder for my family, they lost a son and a daughter. The most wonderful girl in the world. Gabby I’m sorry. I have killed myself by this creek in the hopes that animals may tear me apart. That it may make some of her family happy.

The Vulnerable are Consistently the Ones Harmed First

The final factor which presents itself in the pathology of the predator, is the ubiquitous presence of vulnerability in the harmed party (the blood sacrifice). The predator is intoxicated by the suffering of an innocent (the loosh). Accordingly, and most conveniently, the party harmed by the pathological predator is rarely ever powerful. They are almost always alone and have been cut off from any form of support. They are almost always, an innocent. An abused spouse, closed fashion or jewelry business, a vulnerable child or under-aged sexual exploitation target, an older person, a small business, or a person walking a deserted street alone, a family which has just lost a loved-one, a newborn, or other defenseless target – these opportunities drive the predator to undertake actions which in reality they find uncontrollable. They shall unseal their righteous bowls of wrath under the thunderous fanfare of trumpets.

Gabby was adored by many. They loved as much, if not more than me. She was so thin, had already been freezing too long. She was …shaking violently, while carrying her she continually made sounds of pain, laying next to her she said little lapsing between violent shakes, gasping in pain, begging for an end to her pain. Gabby hated people who litter.

August 12th police dispatch: “RP (Recording party) states seeing a male hit a female, domestic. He got into a white Ford Transit van, has a black ladder on the back, Florida plate. I’m not sure, but the female who got hit, they both, the male and the female both got into the van and headed north.”1

The predator is constantly controlled by forces they do not fully comprehend. Continually reacting to the self-blame and ex post facto rationalization before a third-party judge in their mind – a factor curiously wound up in the compulsion in the first place. They are disarming, sometimes enticing, and often charming. They are the ‘humble and not greedy’ academic who just happens to have their name foisted into as many publications and award nominations as is humanly possible. They have been taught the act well.

Repentance – (see The Riddle of Sin) a divorce from the condemning and compelling third-party voice. The reclaiming of one’s integrity from the constant buffeting and dissolution cycle of blame, ex post facto explaining, self-justification, hiding from accountability, and continuous compulsion to misdeed and correct appearances. The process of having ‘overcome’ – stepping calmly into the light of accountability for the harm one has cleverly sought, to gratefully acknowledge a new direction and purpose.

“The great escape of our times is escape from personal responsibility for the consequences of one’s own behavior.”
― Thomas Sowell, Dismantling America, 2010

vilis ex post facto – a principle of skepticism which contends regarding potential predators, ‘Don’t ask for an explanation, instead, just quietly watch what they do’. The predator has already rehearsed in their mind, the exculpatory reason for the harm they have enacted. It is their fruit which distinguishes them, not their explaining. Similar to the business apothegm. ‘Don’t complain, don’t explain’.

virgo sui – the principle of the virgin self; a psychology which exists as a counterpart to pathological mindsets inside immoral activity. A childish mind cannot accept nor recognize their own dark nature or nefarious actions. A criminal never thinks that they actually committed a/the crime, or may excuse it as justified in some way by means of society, the victim, being street smart or simply that this is the way of their world. A person who commits a wrong and immediately denies inside their own mind that they did it or are culpable. The opposite of repentance.

My intent here of course, is not to speak ill of the dead; but rather to point out the habits of most cleverly concealed avarice on the part of an abusive individual. A set of tools which allow the ethical skeptic to spot that 8% of society (the Crazy Eight) who move through their life as does a roaring lion, seeking nothing but to devour according to what that third-party voice dictates, or what lust it may choose at any given time.

The Ethical Skeptic, “The Ex Post Facto Mindset of the Predator”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 25 Jun 2022; Web,

The Dunning Line (of Skepticism)

The line beyond which, one has become so skeptical, that they have become stupid in the process. Discipline your mind into a steel trap, but make sure it doesn’t serve to only entrap you.

Rarely do I develop a post article simply for the purpose of promulgating a single definition. But this one element of my lexicon bears so much importance that herein I will depart from the habit. Below, please consider for your lexicon, ‘The Dunning Line’. Think of this principle as constituting an analogue of ‘The Mendoza Line’ from baseball, which is applied to other disciplines as a kind of minimum level of competence required to perform inside a subject. Most skeptic minions reside at a point well below this line. These characters are relatively easy to spot – save for the context of self-circumspection.

The Dunning Line

(or Inretio Line, Latin ‘ensnare’) – the line beyond which, one has become so skeptical, that they have become stupid in the process. One skilled at filtering out only that information which offends their feelings and sensibility – as opposed to being based upon actual evidence or science. Named for the minimum level of prowess one can possess and still barely function as a skeptic, as opposed to a babbling cynic.

Discipline your mind into a steel trap, but make sure it doesn’t serve to only entrap you.

The name of this term is derived loosely from the ‘Dunning-Kruger Effect’. It is also kind of funny in a way. The reader can probably tell that I enjoy the hell out of this. Making fake skeptics angry, is a functional part of ethical skepticism. The wages of dissonance.

The Ethical Skeptic, “The Dunning Line (of Skepticism)”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 13 Mar 2022; Web,

A Statistical Profiling of Celebrity Wannabe ‘Scientific Skeptics’

Yeah yeah… We know, you are a skeptic. Yawn. But what else have you done, aside from foist your name inside a list of dead scientists, among whom you would otherwise never merit inclusion? Is your ego that fragile and desperate? A sweep through some analytics regarding social skeptics reveals some startling, yet not totally unexpected results. Psychologists who have inchoate activated the fragile and angry – a thunder chamber of sycophants dictating to everyone else what we all should think.

Remember the old game show called Hollywood Squares? The tic-tac-toe styled game set after which the show was themed, was staffed by a rotating/regular cast of celebrities who would answer questions on behalf of the game show participants. These celebrities were people who were supposedly famous, but for the life of us, no one back then who watched the show could recall why they were famous. These celebrities were famous simply for being famous. I always suspected that some of the ‘celebrity’ participants were in fact no-name citizens who had been inserted into the group of actually famous people, and were presumed to be themselves famous from then on.

Well that model bears curious utility inside the skeptic movement. Skeptics today stand upon a perch of celebrity that is derived simply from pretending to be skeptics in the first place – and a habit of promoting themselves opportunistically inside rosters of names which include personages of true brilliance, accomplishment and renown. However unlike Hollywood Squares, many of those personages are now deceased, fully unable to object over such abuse of their legacies.

Wikipedia maintains a suitably comprehensive listing of America’s most noteworthy (notorious) social skeptics (Wikipedia: List of scientific skeptics).1 Given the reality that Wikipedia allows social skeptics to run amok inside the bowels of its editing and practices of dissenting editor abuse, I feel fairly confident that all the acceptable Who’s-Who of social skepticism are therefore listed therein. Skeptics who are not listed in this tally have committed a misstep in some regard, as viewed by the Cabal – violated the Ministry of Truth’s policy on compliance in some way which has prompted their exclusion from the club. They have failed in their mandatory Schapiro Utterances. With the exception of those who earned their notoriety by actually accomplishing something of merit in their careers, something besides just declaring themselves to be a skeptic, I think we have the right listing inside the Wikipedia lineup (see footnote 1 above).

circus partis

/philosophy : sophistry : agency/ : a false appeal to an authority who is simply ‘famous for being famous,’ or who is simply enjoying their 15 minutes of fame in the club, and do not stand as a credible authority independent of this pseudo-status. This includes personages who are simply famous for being a famous skeptic.

Were I a prominent physicist or mathematician, I would not want to be included within this group.

This is a cache of persons so desperate to get their names inscribed into a science hall of fame, alongside the likes of Brian Cox, Stephen Jay Gould, and Richard Feynman, that they would literally do and say anything, attack anyone, and push any form of half baked science – sell their very integrity – in order to be counted among such company. I never really completely grasped what was occurring in the minds of these poseurs, until this last decade of philosophical study. After decades of watching social skeptics and how they behave, I have come to the conclusion: It is all about the celebrity. Not one issue of advocacy entails an actual improvement in the lot of mankind. Feckless meaningless targets foisted to provide a theater stage, upon which they can show their wares – that seething miasma of the wont to be the smartest person in the room. They bear such a need to be right – that they must be identified with science, even if it costs every friend or ounce of self-respect they can bear forfeit.

No. It’s not by arguing with “kindness & care” that you break academic mafias, criminal organizations,
impostors (psychologists) & lobbying groups. It is by exposing them, making their lives miserable & targeting their audience. ~Nassim Taleb

So I thought I would take a quick walk through some of the statistics with regard to the profiles these pretenders have published on Wikipedia, just to see if some of my experience-based, yet nonetheless preconceived notions about the makeup of American skeptics, panned out. I was not disappointed. It was actually worse than I had thought.

Seven Inferential Breakouts Concerning Celebrity Wannabe ‘Scientific’ Skeptics

Light Representation of Relevant Degrees or Fields of Study

I am not sure whether to laugh or cry when I examine this first listing. Of the 81 celebrity wannabe and deceased skeptics inside the Wikipedia lineup, the largest contingent by far is represented by those who possess no degree, and have never served in any actual function which involves science, in their entire lives. The second largest, and first real professional group comprises psychologists, behavioral scientists and psychiatrists. This is followed by (refreshingly) physicists, philosophers and medical skeptics, tailed finally by a scant smattering of other science discipline representations.

That is a rather precipitous drop-off after ‘psychology’ and ‘none’. Should not this familiar Pareto bias concern those in the Cabal, at least a little?

Not simply over the matter of lack of qualification, but moreover concerning the propensity for establishing conclusion through the ease of ad hoc and pseudo-theory claims based upon the notion, ‘your mind created this’. A non-testable conclusion which explains everything, anything and nothing, all at the same time. A cadre of psychologists and magicians do not make for good investigators – as they both are experts in abductive inference – which is weak in its bootstrap, methodical and probative strengths.2

What one should note with grave concern, is that those professional groups in red, those who conduct real Karl Popper science based upon authentic disciplines of deduction, probative study and hypothesis, these compose a mere 15 individuals among the 81 skeptics listed. Of even more importance, half (7) of those individuals are also dead! A single engineer and a single mathematician? – yet 35 people who have not set foot in a university or a lab? C’mon guys, you have to do better than this. Does the idea even ever cross your mind to apply skepticism to yourselves?

Notoriety Attained through Invalid Thunder Chamber Promotion

Exhibit 1 to the right, demonstrates the breakout of the celebrity wannabe skeptic lineup in terms of how they attained their current notoriety. 11% of the listed members were inserted into the tally because they actually did something with their lives, of noteworthy accomplishment besides being a skeptic. Only 11%. Let that sink in, and you begin to understand inside this first graph that this is a peer pressure club. A club which foisted its approved names upon an important Wikipedia page, and then inserted the likes of Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov, without their permission, in order to assuage their enormous egos. Of this thin margin 11% however, many of the accomplished scientists who employed skepticism as a part of science (how it is supposed to be employed), are now deceased – no longer able to stand up and say ‘No, this is not what I meant by being a skeptic. We were not trying to establish another religion, nor another persecutor of science.’

The notoriety of the skeptics who have inserted themselves into this charade in reality stems merely from active promotion by their club. This club of pretenders composes 86% of the entire listing. The lineup actually includes 70 out of 81 persons who belong to science enthusiast activist congregations like The Skeptics Society, Center for Inquiry or Skeptics in the Pub. An abysmal set of surreptitious contrivances – the epitome of not simply echo chamber, rather of appeal to authority thunder chamber.

Thunder Chamber – an appeal to authority version of echo chamber, much more imperious in its insistence and intimidating in its effect. A club of science communicators – catalyseurs seeking conflict between laypersons and scientists, to enable furtherment of their power as a furtive liaison therein.

This is how they obtained the visibility implied by the Wikipedia lineup – through club authority and intimidation.  It is transparently unethical.

Little Relevant Qualification or History of Professional Accountability

Exhibit 2 outlines the portion of the members listed in the tally, who actually attained a degree or have done work inside a discipline which might even be considered as science. A mere 57% of this group of skeptics maintain a career or background which would allow them to be trained in skepticism or the scientific method in the first place.

43% of this group bears no scientific qualification other than ‘self-identified skeptic’. If you remove the deceased scientists from the qualified group, this number of non-science trained ‘scientific skeptics’ jumps to 49% of the living total roster of ‘science skeptics’. Half of those determining the scientific skeptic worldview, the most vocal half – bear no scientific credential whatsoever.

A full 35 members or 43% of the list (both living and deceased), as you can see in the ‘Relevant Field or Degree’ graphic above right, possess no degree, background nor experience in any professional or social task which would serve to hold them accountable as to their ability to apply skepticism or science. This ‘being held accountable’ in a professional context is a critical qualification when one is evaluating their candidate celebrity skeptic. People who have performed in a career wherein they are regularly held to accountability (skin in the game), tend to act in completely different fashion from people who began their career as performers or celebrities, or have rarely ever had to produce anything other than ‘critiques’ of others. In a social context, one can get away with pretty much anything; much like in high school. Perhaps then it is no coincidence that high school style bullying often becomes a praxis, best method and club milieu of science skeptics.

Hold no Peer Accountability and Tend to Think Like a Stage Performer

Eighteen members of the Exhibit 3 group, or 22% of the entire tally, were stage or even professional magicians or illusionists. Another 21 were podcast hosts or convention organizers. People who get a charge out of manipulative influence tend to nurture a deception game running as a background theme – as this is their life blood. Even if their primary act is to put on a display of magic – under the context of ‘this is an illusion’; make no mistake, a magician craves the heady rush of a deception – and this foible does not end at the stage exit. The more deep and pervasive the fake, the more satisfying the ploy. I am a fan of the ‘It takes one to know one’ method of expertise validation; however all such deliberations are executed inside the context of complete transparency/accountability. In skeptic clubs, and in situations where only unaccountable critique is exercised, these individuals can claim no such congruence with an ‘it takes one to know one’ ethic.  Yes, ‘It Takes a Thief’ – but we do not then appoint that thief, chief of police nor head of the FBI. Heck, even those roles stand under accountability as to their performance. Skeptics are never held to account.

An epistemic commitment to exposing fraud, when executed under the desire to profit, ridicule and sway public opinion by means of publicity stunts, comes commensurate with a bias for self-aggrandizement and hyperbole. Attracting attention to self is not the same thing as marketing, and plays a key role in all such pathologizing of the supposed credulous and woo believer.

It is not a coincidence that nearly half of the celebrity wannabe skeptics in the analysis turned out also to be stage magicians and podcast hosts. This summation did not include those who merely attended or presented at skeptic media events. Take this as a curious warning. The ability to unaccountably control what large numbers of people perceive and believe, is an intoxicating and addictive opiate indeed. If your primary goal is to derive money/attention from such activity, you may make no claim to scientific or skeptical elevation over those you mock or deride.

Are Getting Old as a Group: Either Deceased or Average of 61 Years Age

21% of our tally of famous and wannabe famous skeptics are already dead – as is shown by Exhibit 4 to the right. The rest of the group of 64 are inching closer to their own Kuhn-Planck Paradigm shift event each year. Tick-tock, tick-tock. There are very few individuals in the tally, four to be exact, who are below the age of 35. Of those who are young in the tally few are individuals whom, without enormous social backing, would be desirous to carry forward the torch of the 1972 Skeptic’s Handbook. There are no new Michael Shermer’s and Carl Sagan’s budding within this group of attention-seekers. Most skeptics in the younger group tend to be angry, punk and Goth accentuated podcast hosts – devoid of any qualification; being more concerned about who it is they hate than any particular cause of suffering and enlightenment on the part of mankind.  In my best estimate, zero of these four people will continue inside the formal skeptical movement after the current Cabal dies off (Note: Harriet Hall, MD and specialist in ‘quackery’, ironically died from the Covid Vaccine she had pushed, 11 Jan 2023).

This does not bode well for social skepticism. Sixteen years left, for your critical thinking fantasy to play out. Each year you can feel your Cabal’s control on the mind of the American public slipping away from your pretend science, corporate apologizing and ignorance cultivating hands.

Few Have Been Involved in Any Actual Science

81% of the list is composed of poseurs who are called in ethical skepticism, Jamais l’a Fait. They have never done science- never been held to account regarding their dispensation of poorly crafted skepticism. This was supposed to be a ‘list of scientific skeptics’ – yet the vast majority of those in the list are not professionally skilled in such a task at all.

Jamais l’a Fait – Never been there. Never done that. Someone pretending to the role of designer, manager or policy maker – when in fact they have never actually done the thing they are pretending to legislate, decide upon or design.. A skeptic who teaches skepticism, but has never made a scientific discovery, nor produced an original thought for them self. Interest rate policy bureaucrats who have never themselves borrowed money to start a business nor been involved in anything but banks and policymaking. User manuals done by third parties, tax laws crafted by people who disfavor people unlike themselves more heavily, hotel rooms designed by people who do not travel much, cars designed by people who have never used bluetooth or a mobile device, etc.

Exhibit 5 shows this most distressing statistic in the entire analytical results set. Inside social skepticism, few of the living members have actually done any real science.

Too Heavily Represented by Psychology and Soft Sciences

Finally, Exhibit 6 shows that the majority (67%) of those in the more valid professional subset of the Wikipedia skeptic lineup, work inside the softer sciences of psychology, medicine and philosophy. If however, you add to this soft science group, those 35 individuals who bear absolutely no science experience whatsoever, you end up with 82% of the entire tally representing persons lacking in deductive and objective scientific experience.

Psychologists who have inchoate activated angry promotion-minded sycophants – bent on telling everyone what to think, under the guise of ‘critical thinking’.

Psychology functions off of inductive and subjective inference and evidence sets. It is not that these disciplines are unimportant or inappropriate, rather simply that – if a group is going to foist a claim to scientific and technological prowess – especially claims of absence, or conclusion that all observations are MiHoDeAL (Misidentifications, Hoaxes, Delusions, Anecdote and Lies) in nature – exorcised inside a context of supposed hard nosed epistemology – deduction and objective science. Then perhaps they should select a membership which is more representative of disciplines which function upon those value sets.

All this cast of Cabal characters is going to do, is to foment conflict between the public and science.
After all, this is what serves to both obscure them from being held accountable,
and as well serves to legitimize their methods and purpose in the eyes of a duped science and lay public.

Inside ethical skepticism, we believe that the appropriate discipline skills, as well as depth of experience, need be brought to bear inside any claim to represent science or the philosophy of science, skepticism. When you excise the legitimate 11% of this Wikipedia celebrity tally, those who actually made a difference in the world before they were ever considered skeptics, the remaining 89% compose a pitiful Cabal, a cast of characters which falls substantially short of what humanity demands from such an important social-scientific entity.

Skeptics, we demand better. You have 16 years left in which to ply your fake wares. You need to up your game.

The Ethical Skeptic, “A Statistical Profiling of Celebrity Wannabe ‘Scientific Skeptics’”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 2 July 2019; Web,