The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

Latest Trends in Acceptance of UFO’s – Not Good News for Fake Skeptics

Sixty percent of the informed and critical thinking American public believe that UFO’s constitute something other than conventional, natural or man-made phenomena. Much to the disdain of fake skeptics, the phenomenon will not go away – no matter how many celebrities they foist into the spotlight, nor how many verbatim podcasts they produce, and no matter how many times they scream ‘woo!’.

Robust Intelligence Data Portends a Persistent Experiential Base

The latest numbers released by Gallup News Service and its contracted Princeton Survey Research Center do not portend good news for fake skeptics with respect to trends inside public consideration of the UFO subject.1 2 3 A September 6th 2019 Gallup article by Lydia Saad, which highlighted release of the June 2019 (Poll 1) and August 2019 (Poll 2) data by Gallup News Services and was entitled Americans Skeptical of UFOs, but Say Government Knows More, offers a quasi-pessimistic framing of sentiment around the UFO subject on the part of the American public. However, once one looks inside the Gallup data, one finds that Americans are not buying classic failed fake ‘skepticism’ (which is the normal meaning of the word when employed by the media) surrounding UFO’s as much as the article might imply. Indeed, 88% of the informed, non-religious public hold that UFO’s are a real phenomenon, and are not imagined nor halucinated. A mere 33% of that same public segment (not religious nor ignorant) still hold fast to the notion that 100% of UFO sightings are either man-made or can be explained by conventional phenomena. This percentage of holdouts continues to shrink each decade. Much to their disdain, the phenomenon will not go away – no matter how many celebrities they foist into the media spotlight, nor how many verbatim podcasts they produce, and no matter how many times they scream ‘woo!’. Not particularly heady days right now for UFO fake skeptics.

The purpose of this blog article is not to lend credence or denial support around any particular sentiment inside the UFO debate, rather to outline errant method and irrational behavior among those who are faking at their skepticism. There is an extraordinary amount of bunk inside the UFO topic – nearly everyone inside the rational and informed public debate on the topic agrees on this. However, this issue does not constitute the critical path question at hand.

The critical path question entailed is this:

Are a subset of these observations sufficient to establish necessity under Ockham’s Razor? Is official investigation and public oversight warranted?

If the answer to these two questions is ‘yes’, then we can no longer dismiss the UFO matter through a simple wave of the skeptical ‘simplest explanation’ hand.

Demarcation of Skepticism

Once plurality is necessary under Ockham’s Razor, it cannot be dismissed by means of skepticism alone.

In the instance outlined in the two points above, the Demarcation of Skepticism has been called into play. Addressing this demarcation and ethical method of science, is the purpose of this blog article; not any form of attempt to prove UFO’s through an ad populum fallacy. Nor is the purpose of this article to review the confidence interval calculations on the adequacy of the Princeton s-sample base, as that would distract from the critical path argument laid out herein. So, now that we have made all that clear, let’s take a look at the raw results from the Gallup poll summarized by the Saad article. The following is an illustrative graphic we developed depicting the data results in a way in which they can be better understood and analyzed.

Idiosyncrasies Inside the Polling Data

One should take notice of several alert flags inside the data. They are outlined by the following five assertions which signal where oversampling adjustment was needed in the polling regression work:

1.  14% of the respondents had never heard of nor read about UFO’s before. These respondents should have been removed from the study immediately, but were not. Moreover, these respondents were artificially added into the ‘disagree’ responses. This is a professional error in poll work. The respondents should have been excluded from the data. Below, we have done that.

2.  16% of the population has actually seen what they consider to be a UFO. That actually surprised me. This signal group must be counted because there exists an epistemic difference between an informed bias to a modus praesens and an ignorance bias to a modus absens. The latter group is not a valid signal group. This poll did not address that.

3.  The most important warning flag inside the data, was the 22% of the respondents who believe that life only exists on Earth alone, in the entire cosmos. This sol-nihilist sentiment is the dictatum of a specific religious order. This data group should have been removed from the study under the same rationale regarding ignorance, as was used to exclude the group in assertion 1. above. Below we address this adjustment which should have been compensated for through oversampling.

4.  Moreover, if we assume that 5 points of the ignorance group in assertion 1. above responded with ‘No Answer’ (as they ethically should have, but apparently most did not), and if we assume that 4 points of this group are one-in-common (overlap) with the sol-nihilist group identified in assertion 3. above – we are left with 5 percentage points of the respondents who answered the questions, but did so from a standpoint of ignorance under pretense. It is important to note that, of those who had never heard the term ‘UFO’ before – 65% (9 of 14 percentage points) were dishonest in their responses to the successive question series, making specific claims to expertise about something they had admittedly never even heard of. This is called a ‘telltale signal’ in polling research.

The dishonesty quotient grows unduly high as one moves to the right hand side (denial & fake skepticism) of the above graph. This is clearly evident in the response data. This shortfall in human integrity is solely the handiwork of the social skepticism cabal. We address this agency in the polling data below.

5.  Therefore, if we combine the 5 percentage points for exclusion from assertion 4. above, with the 22 percentage points of exclusion from the sol-nihilist religious group in assertion 3. above, we end up with a total of 27 percentage points who should not have been included inside the respondent groups. Both these respondent classes are no different in principle than a Crate-Bradley effect signal grouping – and ethically should have been excluded from the regression data. Below, we have rectified this error.

Up to 53 points of the 60% ‘disagree that UFOs are real’ response group in Poll 2,
hold their positions precisely from ignorance of even the term UFO itself (14%)
or further from being religiously trained that intelligent life only exists on Earth in the entire cosmos (48%).

This is a very big problem socially – and is the direct fault of social skepticism and the embargo influence it imparts upon the media and science.
This is called agency, and is not a valid signal in polling results.

Crate-Bradley Effect Adjustments to Eliminate Embargo-Agency Bias

Three Crate-Bradley sampling bias errors were included inside these poll results.  First including sentiment of those who had never heard of the topic. Second, including responses from those who knew nothing about the topic, but were instructed to throw the poll results. Finally, treating both of these groups as valid ‘Disagree’ sentiment signal data. While we recognize that dogmatism and social conditioning exist on both sides of this issue and as well are concerned about the small numbers of ‘I don’t know’ responses in the poll data, there exists an ethical difference between an informed-yet-mistaken hunch, versus making a circular-club-recitation claim to authority based upon a complete absence of exposure (ignorance) to a topic at all (green eggs and ham error). In reality, the former is participating in the study, the latter is not. The latter ends up constituting only a purely artificial agency-bias, which requires an oversampling or exclusion adjustment (see A Word About Polls).

One cannot capture a sentiment assay about the taste of tiramisu, among people who either don’t even know what tiramisu is, or have never even once tasted tiramisu because they were told it was made of cow manure.

Such an action would be dimwitted and unprofessional (I am not sure how the Princeton Survey Research Center even allowed this to slip by its quality control red team in the first place). This type of data respondent is typically and ethically removed from most polling data marts. We remove some (not all) of this artificial gain-boost of the latter group, from the data, below. Indeed, the Gallup Poll is called ‘How Skeptical Are Americans of UFO’s?’ – and not ‘How Many Americans are Ignorant of What the Universe or a UFO Even Is?’

One cannot answer a question about evidence for/against UFO’s if one believes that both life, and especially intelligent life, do not exist in the Universe to begin with. This is tantamount to refusal to participate in the poll. One cannot be ‘skeptical’ if one knows absolutely nothing about the topic, or already has been instructed under an agency which does not allow a respondent to answer the poll question in the first place. Would you want a poll which asked “Is Jim a good guy?’ to be responded 48% by Jim’s ex wife’s family with whom he is in a child custody battle? Of course not, as such a poll would be invalid. What if we threw in another 15 percentage point respondent group who had no idea who Jim even was at all? Moreover, what if we then counted that 15% as ‘No, Jim is not a good guy’ respondents, simply by account of their lack in knowing who Jim was to begin with (utile absentia fallacy)?  This would result in a poll in which suggests that almost two-thirds of the people who know Jim, hate Jim. This is pollster Tom Foolery and is exactly what was done inside this Gallup poll. It constitutes a common form of academic pseudoscience.

Were my catalog retailer to employ such clueless customer sentiment analytical error in its distribution list and A/B testing, we would go out of business for misinforming ourselves about our customer’s true needs and likes/dislikes. Mitigation of this species in polling bias is usually taught in undergraduate A/B analytics, polling regression and signal group analysis courses (see Stanford University course in Polling, Data and Decision Theory).4 

But in this instance, apparently because UFO’s constitute one of their pet socially primed issues, immunity from professional standards is permitted, answers have to be introduced in compliant code, and inference be drawn only slowly – all so as to avoid offending fake skeptics and to assuage their tender tantrum-throwing egos.

After all, we are looking to see what rational and informed people have to say about this subject, not the random null-informed nor children/invalids who have no idea what the Universe or a UFO even is, but just happened to answer the phone. Bodies would count, informed opinions would count less. In professional contrast, the method we employ below is not formulated under any interest in measuring an affect as to how well a particular message has been embargoed by the media. Our method only concerns the full spectrum of informed choice. We cannot afford to have people who have never tasted tiramisu, show up as part of a signal group which ‘does not like tiramisu’.

The approach adopted here nonetheless does still leave us a representative group of 33% of the rational population who believe that UFO’s are comprehensively explainable as conventional natural or man-made phenomena. A reasoned position from at least a small basis of information. One might call this a position of ignorance as well (the idea that all UFO’s are man-made or natural objects has been falsified at least 1,000 times over), however for purposes of this study, we shall only deem ignorance to constitute an individual who has never heard of nor read about the topic of UFO’s at all (assertion 1. above) or has no idea what the universe even is (assertion 3. above) – and not an opinion which is merely casually informed.

This being said, let us now consider how sentiment ranks inside the informed and rational segment of the US population.

The Real Breakout of Public Sentiment Surrounding UFO’s

Below we have redeveloped the raw poll data from Poll 1 and used it to adjust the results in order to remove Crate-Bradley effect media imbued ignorance from both Polls 1 and 2. The graphic below shows the data correctly adjusted for that static bias, by means of the removal of the 27% (ignorance and sol-nihilism bias) or 18% (sol-nihilist bias only, after overlap with the ignorance group has been removed) as applicable based upon the domain logic of the question asked.

What is demonstrably clear inside this data is the fact that:

1.  60% of the rational and informed US population believe that UFO’s are something other than a natural or man-made phenomenon.

2.  25% of the rational and informed US populace have observed something they consider to be a UFO. This is rather remarkable.

3.  A supermajority, 88% of US citizens believe that UFO’s are not imaginary nor hysteria. They believe there is something that people are seeing flying around in the skies. 28 percentage points of that 88% believe that the things flying around in our skies are man-made exclusively.

4.  93% of the US population considers it valid to hold that there exists life on other planets in the Universe – while 67 percentage points of that group believe that some of that life could also be intelligent. I remain amazed that these percentages are still this low.

5.  76% of the US population thinks that its government knows something about these phenomena, and for good or for bad, is withholding that knowledge from the American public.

6.  Moreover, I find alarm in that the ‘No/Disagree’ group inside these queries should ethically respond with anything besides ‘I do not know’ (the truth). This incumbent dishonesty stems precisely from having been taught a false form of skepticism. The social conditioning around this issue has reduced the set of ‘I do not know’ responses to a level well below what they ethically should be for these questions (from both sides). However, in the case of the modus absens claims in particular (claiming that something is not, without evidence), these are unseemly and grandiose claims to knowledge of an absence, which the claimants could not possibly have derived objectively. They have been socially primed in this response. This species of claim is wholly different than a mistaken claim from a set of positives (modus praesens).

Emotional Priming – a process of pseudo-education wherein a popular controversial issue such as Creation-Evolution, or Monsim-Dualism is framed as a whipping horse, posed in a false dilemma, so as to polarize the general public into ‘science’ and ‘woo’ camps of belief. The visceral reaction to the woo camp of belief inside academia imbues a type of anchoring bias and emotional agency on the part of those who self appoint or are tasked to ‘represent science’ – thereafter influencing their objectivity just as severely as would a religion. ​

Curiously 48 points of the 60% of the respondent group who did not believe that UFO’s were real, also did not believe there was any intelligence life in the cosmos at all, besides us.  This leaves only 12% of the population who competently live in today’s reality, and still think that UFO’s are not valid.

Skeptics claim that their thinking is representative of 60% of the American population. This is an error on their part, as the people in this signal group are not skeptics at all. Skeptics are simply taking advantage of their ignorance. They are useful idiots.

Such is the state of knowledge regarding UFO’s on the part of the American public (as represented by an adjusted Gallup scientific sampling by means of cell phone and land line). It is the mission of ethical skepticism, not to promote ideas regarding UFO’s necessarily, but rather to ensure that the dogmatic forces which seek to squelch knowledge, ironically in the name of science, are not able to play their sordid game of obfuscation. Let the chips fall where they may. We are all grown-ups (save for 27% of us).

Sixty percent of the informed and critical thinking American public believe that UFO’s constitute something other than conventional, natural or man-made phenomena. Such sentiment continues to rise, much to the chagrin of those inside the fake skepticism cabal. Does such sentiment then warrant Ockham’s Razor plurality? Are official public investigation and oversight now justified? The American public’s answer to both these questions is a resounding, ‘Yes!’. They preside as proprietary rights-holder over all the information inside this topic. Indeed, even if the issue involves matters of national security. This knowledge should not be unduly restricted from their purview, nor embargoed by forces of religion nor ignorance.

Accordingly, this is part and parcel to the fabric of our mission as ethical skeptics.

     How to MLA cite this article:

The Ethical Skeptic, “Latest Trends in Acceptance of UFO’s Not Good News for Fake Skeptics”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 9 Sep 2019; Web,

September 9, 2019 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism | , , , , | 2 Comments

Heteroduction – When Classic Inference Proves Unsound

There exists a circumstance for skepticism wherein a nagging repetitive anecdote inside the general public experience just will not go away. The impasse wherein its absence has been falsified, yet classic forms of inference fail in deriving its presence. Such instance stands as Ockham’s Razor necessity for the introduction of a new form of inference – one better suited to intelligence assimilation, than classic academic study. A disruptive and asymmetric form of inference which resides at the heart of the Kuhn-Planck Theory of Scientific Revolution.

Much to the chagrin of fake skeptics, certain phenomena and archetypes in the realm of human experience, will just not go away. Specific subjects they disdain are irritatingly bolstered by almost daily repeated observation on the part of the general public. Inside many of these topics the idea that such disdained phenomena constitute a mere figment of overzealous imaginations has been falsified over and over. But this will never satisfy the mind of a fake skeptic. They extrapolate a condition of difficulty in terms of classic inference, to therefore stand as basis for inferring the phenomenon’s absence as well (appeal to ignorance). They then invoke the name of science, as a USDA stamp of certification on such putrid products of ‘critical thinking’. To the ethical skeptic, such skeptical casuistry is folly.

My thoughts regarding this condition, what I have termed the contrathetic impasse, revolve are around a new approach to research and inference. One which we employed inside Intelligence, during my days therein. This is the form of research which might be performed by an investigator. This ilk of researcher does not hold an entire body of pre-knowledge (prior art), and must assemble such as part of their discovery process inside their research method. Not that this mode of inference or means of research has not existed all along; rather my point is, that this form of research is denied its own meaning and identity inside acceptable science method. Skeptics regard investigators and sponsors as lower, invalid forms of scientist. Pseudo scientists. Nothing could be further from the truth.

A Necessity for Heteroduction

The form of research and mode of inference this style of researcher employs involves a circumstance/conundrum exhibiting the following cohesive set of characteristics – ones common to all subjects which labor under this burden:

1.  Locus of study resides inside an enigma or apparent enigma which bears detection, but is denied meaning (See Descriptive Wittgenstein Error)

2.  Its logical critical path bears asymmetry or is unduly influenced by agency

3.  Its observations are ephemeral, hard to quantify and involve apparent sublime factors

4.  Observations are cherry sorted by skeptics in favor of reliability over their probative potential

5.  There exists an appeal-to-authority hostility toward the subject domain (Embargo Hypothesis – Hξ)

6.  The disciplines of lab/linear style hypothesis, deduction and induction have not proved to constitute sufficient inference methodologies to make progress inside the enigma

7.  More is unknown than is known regarding the entailed subject domain.

Solving a murder (deduction) or discovering a non-chlorine hand sanitizer for Ebola stricken areas (linear induction), or arriving at a conclusion about the character of a person (triangulating induction) – none of these constitute a sufficient method of inference under the condition outlined above. This condition demands much more, a form of Intelligence if you will, than it demands a basic form of intellectual exercise or inference. In the list to the right, you can observe the various modes of induction, ranked according to probative strength. Heteroduction (in red) is not so much strong in its relative ranking as a form of inference, as it is key in its role as possibly the only avenue of recourse once science and society have reached a contrathetic impasse. Observations have been proven to exist, but classic means of research have failed to produce critical answers.

Maybe one of the first steps inside this battle revolves around prompting philosophers of science to recognize this ‘new’ form of induction in the first place. Perhaps this is why fake skeptics patrol philosophy as well, to ensure that this form of inference is never understood nor accepted.


/philosophy : inference/ : a disruptive and asymmetric form of inference necessary when classic modes of inference have served to produce or enforce incoherent and/or falsified conclusions. Heteroduction is associated less commonly with classic incremental hypothesis, and more with a process of investigation called intelligence assimilation. A novel form of inference which does not or cannot rely solely upon leveraging an incremental extrapolation of risk from that which is alike to our prior art. Rather, this method of inference must pool and draw inference from that which is unlike our prior art. It is the basis of the Kuhn-Planck Paradigm Shift understanding of scientific revolutions.

Heteroduction is strong because it leverages inconsistent observation as a form of coincident falsification and deduction.
Falsifications and deductions of high probative value which are erroneously or surreptitiously dismissed
because of their perceived lack of consistency, conformance or salience.

One must establish a consilient shitload in confirmation of standing wisdom, in order to counter for one violation of it.
Because a single instance of violation of our wisdom is vastly more scientifically informative than is any particular instance of its confirmation.

There are certain subjects, wherein their modus absens (absence as an object or state) has been falsified. In other words, Ockham’s Razor plurality has been surpassed and ethical research now demands their investigation. These are the domains which are best researched by the intelligence specialist; that form of investigator who knows how to assemble prior art and chase a consilience of information, all of which have proved to be unlike much of what we have seen before. But such a researcher must understand, that what is forbidden, and the puzzle piece nubs which are cut off in order to make the pieces a better ‘fit’ inside the a priori puzzle, can also often be assembled into the truth. Such is a predictable foible of mankind.

An Example of Heteroduction

For instance, dark matter is a one-idea-solves-all proposition which is raised as a result of cataloging a set of anomalous observations regarding universal/galactic motions in their relation to our understanding of gravity.  Classic linear induction would dictate that we craft dark matter as the incremental element which would function to conserve general relativity and Lambda-CDM models as the null hypothesis in the face of such a growing set conflicting observations. The reader may be forgiven for confusing such activity with ‘belief’. An ethical skeptic understands that the null hypothesis should never enjoy the luxury of becoming a belief.

Heteroduction in contrast, would coalesce all these same anomalous observations (see below) into a competing paradigm; observations which either are unlike anything we have ever seen, or even contradict our current prior art on the subject.  Heteroduction in this instance serves to develop a grounded-but-novel explanatory schema for these into a new competing construct (hopefully later hypothesis, if it can survive fake skepticism). Quantized Inertia stands as a key example of heteroduction in action.

Linear Induction

Dark Matter – a hypothetical form of matter that is thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe, and about a quarter of its total energy density. Its presence is inductively implied in a variety of astrophysical observations, including gravitational effects that cannot be explained unless more matter is present than can be seen.1

A person conducting heteroduction would sound warning on this line of reasoning – if enforced as a truth, rather than as the null hypothesis (note that I am not arguing against Dark Matter as a construct, simply using its deliberation as exemplary here).


Quantized Inertia (QI) – previously known by the acronym MiHsC (Modified Inertia from a Hubble-scale Casimir effect), is the concept first proposed in 2007 by physicist Mike McCulloch, as an alternative to general relativity and the mainstream Lambda-CDM model. Quantized Inertia is posited to explain various anomalous effects such as the Pioneer and flyby anomalies, observations of galaxy rotation which forced Dark Matter’s introduction and propellantless propulsion experiments such as the EmDrive and the Woodward effect. It is a theory of inertia-like resistance arising from quantum effects, which serves to function in the place of dark matter –  as the necessary conjecture explaining ‘missing matter/gravitation’ in our cosmological models.2

For a better framing of QI Theory than I can render here, one can find a common sense summary within this video (which is also recommended by physicist Mike McCulloch):  The Fringe Theory Which Could Disprove Dark Matter

The Unruh effect, Casimir effect, information coding/compression theory and missing mass of galactic rotation, all of which provide the praedicate to QI theory, are all well established constructs inside modern science. Each subject outlines artifacts of observation unlike any we have observed before – anomalies which prompt scientists to go ‘huh?’. However it is the probative potential of such observations combined with this very nature of being unlike our standing prior art on the subject, which suggests their necessary combination into a new theoretical paradigm. This process/mode of inference is called heteroduction. It becomes necessary when classic forms of inference (the top ones in the chart above) have run their course in ability to provide explanatory or predictive power, and a critical mass of exception/falsifying observations continue to accrue.

True science challenges its null hypothesis, and this construct/hypothesis challenges the null hypothesis within a reasonable basis of soundness. This does not mean that QI therefore as an idea is correct, rather that it stands as a potential foundational stone inside a Kuhn-Planck Paradigm Shift. The mode of inference and the method of investigation remain valid, despite whether or not the QI alternative pans out to be true in the end. It is indeed science.

In contrast, there exist several darker forms of inference, a key one of which is panduction.


/philosophy : invalid inference/ : an invalid form of inference which is spun in the form of pseudo-deductive study. Inference which seeks to falsify in one felled swoop ‘everything but what my club believes’ as constituting one group of bad people, who all believe the same wrong and correlated things – this is the warning flag of panductive pseudo-theory. No follow up series studies nor replication methodology can be derived from this type of ‘study’, which in essence serves to make it pseudoscience.  This is a common ‘study’ format which is conducted by social skeptics masquerading as scientists, to pan people and subjects they dislike.

As such an idea like QI, which hinges upon heteroduction, cannot be equated with pseudoscience, as did Brian Koberlein in a Forbes (no surprise here to followers of The Ethical Skeptic) article on 15 February 2017.3 I am not a proponent necessarily of Quantized Inertia, but this form of ‘I am God’ journalism, purposed a priori with the sole objective of harming (scienter) researchers for daring to think differently, constitutes a Richeliean appeal-to-authority on the part of Brian Koberlein. Brian exhibits here a longstanding problem in science and not any form of its valid expression. His appeal to ‘peer review’ and opponent ‘resistance to criticism (infer: invalidation)’ ring with sounds of familiarity to the experience ethical skeptic and investigator. Not that those things are wrong as aspects of science, rather they are the common last resort implements of the scoundrel, when used to counter otherwise sound evidence and scientific method. A circumstance wherein the poseur has exhausted the depths of their technical competence and now must resort to sciencey-sounding rhetoric.

One can ascertain from the Forbes article, that Brian understands fully he will be rewarded with immediate monkey-with-a-gas-can credibility (and future income) through visibly bullying a weaker target and slinging a couple familiar terms about. It is one thing to professionally disagree – another thing altogether to call something which possesses valid mechanism and observation, ‘pseudoscience’. This is not ‘scientific criticism’. This is a Wittgenstein object called evil (harm as a first priority, through misrepresentation with scienter):

Rather than addressing criticism, you start building a story where your idea is obviously right, and others are simply too closed-minded to see it. Down that path lies pseudoscience, and sometimes you can watch it happening. Take for example, Mike McCulloch’s theory of Modified inertia by a Hubble-scale Casimir effect (MiHsC), also known as quantized inertia.4

~Brian Koberlein, Astrophysicist and Forbes Contributor

It is not that Brian’s conclusion is wrong. But more importantly, his mode of inference (panduction) is unsound. His method is wrong and will only serve to propagate ignorance. It forces science advancement to rely critically upon, not discovery, rather the eventual passing of its participants.

Science advances through disruptive shifts based upon heteroduction, and only after the posing skeptics of conformance all die.
The intrinsically deductive nature of death therefore, may stand as mankind’s most profound form of scientific inference.

Brian starts by assuming the proposition to be wrong (an amazing feat of panductive critical thinking – see chart above), and then straw man frames the thought behind its competing idea as originating from ‘building a story’ (infer ‘lie’ dear reader). This constitutes an overreach in skepticism, as this circumstance may constitute simply a matter of a necessary competing construct (see Embargo of the Necessary Alternative is Not Science).

Under Brian’s method outlined here, we are done with science as a key bulwark to the future of humanity – as no new idea can ever be developed again. Nothing but academic journalism from here on out folks – get on the bus or be pseudoscience. We are the science, you are not. Papers published will be constrained to only those which serve to stroke the egos of those who achieved journalistic tenure, and can only serve to propose hypotheses which conjecture additional novel tidbits outlining how brilliant and correct we have always been. This is nonscientific propaganda, a form of bullshit common with Forbes and its contributors.

It is not that dark matter is invalid as a construct or theory; rather, the challenge resides in exposing this fake form of its enforcement. A philosophical experiment which will serve to benefit future generations in combating methodical cynicism and ignorance.

 It is this very process of

  • denying a whole method of inference its own meaning and role
  • invalidating (not ‘criticizing’) a scientific enigma because of its asymmetrical challenge and sublime observation base
  • obsessing over reliability to the sacrifice of understanding, and
  • Richeliean appeal to authority

which stand as the conditions which make heteroduction necessary as now an accepted mode of inference. A mode of inquiry which resides at the heart of the ethical talented intelligence specialist. It is up to the ethical skeptic to ensure that such researchers and avenues of research are shielded from the nefarious forces which would see to their premature demise.

     How to MLA cite this article:

The Ethical Skeptic, “Heteroduction – When Classic Inference Proves Unsound”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 27 Jan 2019; Web,


January 27, 2019 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism | , , | Leave a comment

The Essential Mind of the Religious Pitch

It is not that the ethical skeptic cannot make and hold dear a metaphysical selection – it is rather, the path one undertakes to get there, and what one does with it thereafter, which makes all the difference.

A religious pitch is a common way for an individual to spread influence and extract conformity to his view of the world from his fellow man. A psychological need underpins this natural human foible, as the attainment of conformity from another serves as a kind of confirmation salve which assuages the pitch-maker’s inner fear. The pitch itself may differ between clubs which are in conflict, but the essential nature and structure of the pitch never changes. For instance, the essential structure of the conversion-seeking Dunning-Kruger argument, is at its core – a religious pitch. A God or gods, churches, synagogues, etc. have nothing to do with the essential nature of the approach, nor do they stand as indicative of any fundamental difference between the various religious clubs.

They are here to tell you again, the same exact entity/method/virtue (EMV) construct you have heard before, under the false presumption that you did not get it, the last 5,936 times you had their message pushed on you. What follows is the essential nature of such a religious pitch:

   The Religious Pitch

 1.  I Am the Good (Club)

That you personally and your club represent a/the higher entity/method/virtue or all that is the attainable good inside reality.

 2.  Others are Not the Good

That your fellow man, whom you regard to not be in the Club, represents a/the lowest entity/method/virtue and is neutral to bad inside reality.

 3.  I Hold Critical EMV Sophia

That your cognition includes an critical grasp of ‘what counts’ inside the nature of reality; the acceptable, the bad, truth, rationality, effectiveness and what happens upon our passing from this realm.

 4.  Others Need Conversion

That others have never heard the repetition of, nor the specific narrative and details involved in 1 – 3 above before – or if they did, they did not get it or did not hear it expressed correctly.

 5.  My Club is Immortal/Omniscient and Exclusively Sanctioned by a Standard of Awesomeness

That your Club has never been any different, held any different beliefs, nor violently filtered out any essential portion of its teachings or people; and its Critical EMV Sophia has never not existed, nor really changed in any significant way. It holds exclusive license and grasp of some iconic standard of specific awesomeness, such as God or Science or Critical Thinking.

 6.  Blind Eye

Doubt any threatening ideas, but never doubt the Club or any single tenet inside its doctrine. Fear the club or its awesome standard. Especially do not question Club history in oppressing or harming others or mankind through these first five character traits above.


•  Critical Thinking/Rationality Clubs
•  Abrahamism/Hinduism
•  Nihilistic Atheism/Material Monism
•  Club Skepticism (Social Skepticism)
•  Buddhism/Taoism

Science holds itself accountable, and in a way – celebrates exposure of its own misadventure.
Religious thinking conceals its foibles and ignores its failures.

However, inside each of the above religious pitch clubs, there are individuals who practice the ethic which follows.

The essence of ethical skepticism is this:

  1. There is No Club – Club Quality does not work (see #2. below).

  2. Good Intentions Serve to Harm – Good intentions are a way of deceiving self in harming others. Even if harm is not intended, it will still occur as a result.

  3. I Do Not Hold Sophia – I do not possess the cognition of any critical entity/method/virtue. I hold myself accountable precisely because of this knowledge.

  4. Truth is Non-Robust/Change is Inevitable – If you are not evolving, you are dying.

  5. Tolerance – Others only need instruction when they operate under the Religious Pitch – then relax thereafter, as the rest will come.

  6. Never a Blind Eye – Go Look. Always question to increase value or reduce risk (not just ‘doubt’ – see #2 above).

It is not that the ethical skeptic has to arrive at a conclusion at all. Nor that he or she cannot choose and hold dear a metaphysical selection, nor any kind of inspiration or meaning to life, even if esoteric and unprovable – it is rather, the path you undertake to get there, and what you do with it thereafter, which makes all the difference.

epoché vanguards gnosis


How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “The Essential Mind of the Religious Pitch” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 23 Nov 2018; Web,

November 23, 2018 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism | , | Leave a comment

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: