When does a Dunning-Kruger misapplication flag the circumstance of ad hominem attack by a claimant who sees them self as superior minded? When you observe it being applied in situations and domains inside of which the study authors, Kruger and Dunning, never intended. It behooves the ethical skeptic to actually read the studies which are purported at face value to back habitual social skeptic condemnation tactics. Knowing how to not commit a Dunning-Kruger Effect error in application, ironically is a key indicator as to one’s competency under a Dunning-Kruger perspective in the first place.
A saying is attributed to Thomas Jefferson about the wisdom of self-knowledge, and goes as such “He who knows best, best knows how little he knows.” This quote is actually highlighted inside a celebrated study by Cornell University Psychologists, Justin Kruger and David Dunning; commonly referred to as the ‘Dunning-Kruger Effect’ study. Indeed this principle elicited by Jefferson is embodied inside two of the Seven Tropes of Ethical Skepticism:
I. There is critically more we do not know, than we do know.
II. We do not know, what we do not know. Only a sub-critical component of mankind effectively grasps this.
One wonders if Thomas Jefferson, in recognizing this human tendency would have been the wiser to not attempt his bold assertions inside of “A Declaration by the Representatives of The United States of America, In General Congress Assembled.”¹ This haughty document, certainly venturing into an arena in which Jefferson himself had no personal degree or particular expertise, represented a projection into a subject about which he could not possibly have known competency. Surely this is a case of Dunning-Kruger ‘fallacy’ if ever one was observed. A enormous boast of unseemly levels of claim to knowledge (ones which make socialist and social skeptics uncomfortable to this very day):
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with
inherent andcertain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness: that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, & to institute new government, laying it’s foundation on such principles, & organizing it’s powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness.¹
Indeed, the Seven Tropes of Ethical Skepticism continue with a focus outlining that the necessity of knowledge, even in absence of knowledge, is to observe and correct when a party seeks to control by means of ignorance, provisional knowledge, methodical cynicism and authority alone (the three basic elements of Social Skepticism). It holds our common service to each other and love for our fellow man and his plight, to underpin with utmost importance our qualification to observe and direct the processes of knowledge. In this instance, regarding Jefferson and those who crafted our first ideas of what a government was to be, courage, risk and personal gumption outweighed calls for caution – specifically because of the particular need, benefit or danger entailed. Dunning-Kruger indeed did not apply because the situation dictated actions of character on the part of an agent of change (see #12 below). This is most often the circumstance which we as ethical skeptics face today.
Dunning-Kruger awareness does not apply as a fallacy of disqualification in such circumstances. This awareness about both the limits of knowledge, as well as when a Dunning-Kruger Effect does and does not apply, relate directly to the Seven Tropes of Ethical Skepticism. Several species/errors in application arise under a logical calculus which seeks to survey the landscape of the Dunning-Kruger Effect:
Dunning-Kruger Abuse (ad hominem)
/philosophy : pseudo-science : fascism/ : a form of ad hominem attack. Inappropriate application of the Dunning-Kruger fallacy in circumstances where it should not apply; instances where every person has a right, responsibility or qualification as a victim/stakeholder to make their voice heard, despite not being deemed a degree, competency or title holding expert in that field.
This circumstance of employment standing in stark contrast with legitimate circumstances where the Dunning-Kruger Effect does indeed apply. Including those circumstances where ironically, a fake skeptic is not competent enough to identify a broader circumstance of Dunning-Kruger in themselves and their favored peers (several species below).
/philosophy : misconception : bias/ : an effect in which incompetent people fail to realize they are incompetent because they lack the skill or maturity to distinguish between competence and incompetence among their peers.²
A principle which serves to introduce the ironic forms of Dunning-Kruger Effect employed skillfully by Social Skepticism today:
/philosophy : pseudo-science : false skepticism : social manipulation/ : the manipulation of public sentiment and perceptions of science, and/or condemnation of persons through skillful exploitation of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. This occurs in four speciated forms:
/philosophy : pseudo-science : fascism/ : the manipulation of unconsciously incompetent persons or laypersons into believing that a source of authority expresses certain opinions, when in fact the persons can neither understand the principles underpinning the opinions, nor critically address the recitation of authority imposed upon them. This includes the circumstance where those incompetent persons are then included in the ‘approved’ club solely because of their adherence to proper and rational approved ideas.
/philosophy : pseudo-science : fascism/ : a circumstance wherein either errant information or fake-hoaxing exists in such quantity under a Dunning-Kruger Exploitation circumstance, or a critical mass of Dunning-Kruger Effect population is present, such that core truths observations, principles and effects surrounding a topic cannot be readily communicated or discerned, as distinct from misinformation, propaganda and bunk.
Dunning-Kruger Projection (aka Plaiting)
/philosophy : misconception : bias/ : the condition in which an expert in one discipline over-confidently fails to realize that they are not competent to speak in another discipline, instead relying upon their status in their home discipline or as a scientist, to underpin their authority or self-deception regarding an array of subjects inside of which they know very little.
/philosophy : misconception : bias/ : an effect in which incompetent people making claim under ‘skepticism,’ fail to realize they are incompetent both as a skeptic and as well inside the subject matter at hand. Consequently they will fall easily for an argument of social denial/promotion because they
1. lack the skill or maturity to distinguish between competence and incompetence among their skeptic peers and/or are
2. unduly influenced by a condition of Dunning-Kruger Exploitation or Millieu, and/or are
Dunning-Kruger Denial is a chief objective of social skepticism. So it was not surprising that social skepticism recognized this overall malady first; as exploiting its ad hominem potential, is one of the principal tactics of fake skepticism.
Nonetheless, back to the principal context of this blog, with regard to fair contextual application of actual underlying Dunning-Kruger principles, and framed in a more simple and condensed expression:
One does not possess the right, to dismiss the rights of others – by means of a Dunning-Kruger Effect accusation.
What the Kruger and Dunning Study Did Say
The famously heralded study, one by Justin Kruger and David Dunning inside the Department of Psychology of Cornell University in 1999, implied the importance of recognizing when one has outlasted their competency in a given field versus their peers in that field – and the importance of keeping mute/inactive in circumstances where this could serve to embarrass or endanger. A study which would have certainly been embraced by the Royalist or Tory in the day of Thomas Jefferson. More specifically the study outlined four pitfalls which were observed among 60 – 90 Cornell University undergraduate first year students (below).
(Note: This certainly a Dunning-Kruger commentary in itself as to Kruger and Dunning’s ability to develop unbiased inclusion criteria which would or would not serve to amplify desired effect. Have you ever known an undergraduate freshman who did not overestimate their success in an upcoming exam or evaluation? This is the definition of freshman.
Scientific parsimony would have been applicable here, especially from the perspective of selecting a source-S sample pool of silver-spooned Ivy-Leaguers who have been told their entire lives that they are the smartest person in the room/building. This is like observing if fights will break out when two people hit each other, by conducting surveys inside a drunken London mosh pit full of Manchester United and Arsenal Football Clubbers. It is stupidity dressed up in lab coats. An epistemologically shallow if not elegant convenience of social skeptic tradecraft. A common produit-de–célèbre on their part – especially among psychology PhD’s.
What they observed in fact, was the unique nutrient solution of psychology and social pressure which serves to cultivate our brood of social skeptics. These test subjects and their indoctrinated peers will be sure to never step out of line, or speak up when they might be afraid, ever again. See # 11 below.)
Given this skewed inclusive criteria group, one with which Kruger and Dunning were very familiar and inside of which they had already bore an intuitive estimation of positive result, four predictions from the surveys were developed and confirmed:
Prediction 1. Incompetent individuals, compared with their more competent peers, will dramatically overestimate their ability and performance relative to objective criteria.
Prediction 2. Incompetent individuals will suffer from deficient metacognitive skills, in that they will be less able than their more competent peers to recognize competence when they see it–be it their own or anyone else’s.
Prediction 3. Incompetent individuals will be less able than their more competent peers to gain insight into their true level of performance by means of social comparison information. In particular, because of their difficulty recognizing competence in others, incompetent individuals will be unable to use information about the choices and performances of others to form more accurate impressions of their own ability.
Prediction 4. The incompetent can gain insight about their shortcomings, but this comes (paradoxically) by making them more competent, thus providing them the metacognitive skills necessary to be able to realize that they have performed poorly.²
None of the cautions above and below herein of course, serve to invalidate the effect Kruger and Dunning (and others since) have cited in the referenced study. These cautions simply function as a sentinel, flagging conditions wherein such a study might be abused for social ends. To that end, let us discuss some of those circumstances where a social skeptic might abuse such a study as a means of demanding conformance through social ridicule, on issues they are seeking to promote.
When Dunning-Kruger Effect Does Not Apply
A reasonable man would suppose that underestimating one’s ability to adeptly handle the intricate subtleties of a Dunning-Kruger accusation, stands as a form of Dunning-Kruger fallacy in itself. But that does not inhibit our self-appointed elite, the social skeptic from slinging around the accusation with all the adeptness of a demolitions expert in a porcelain factory. The sad reality is that the majority of instances in which I have seen the accusation foisted, have been instances of invalid usage. In other words, as the social skeptic interprets this study and instructs their sycophants as to its employment, they and their disciples are now scientifically justified (remember they represent science) in making the following accusations.
How the four findings of the Dunning-Kruger study are abused in the anosognosia vulnerable mind:
- People whom I do not like, do stupid things.
- People whom I do not like, fail to recognize how smart I am.
- People whom I do not like, fail to recognize how stupid they are.
- It is simply a matter of me training the stupid, because as they become more informed like me, they will be come less stupid and recognize stupidity in others.
Do you see the sales cycle evolving here? This is a religious pitch used by fundamentalist Christianity. They could print this up in a tract and hand it out inside Airport bathrooms. In other words what the Dunning-Kruger misapplication has introduced is an act of social anosognosia (a deficit of self awareness) on the part of those who see themselves as superior minded. This relates to the more complex comparatives between Intelligence and Rationality, a perception on the part of social skeptics which we addressed in an earlier blog.
Intelligence is smart people who do or think unauthorized things. Rationality is smart people who do or think correct things. Social Skepticism is about knowing the difference.
Ethical Skepticism says ‘Bullshit’ to this line of reasoning.
Which introduces the final point set of this blog, circumstances where the Dunning-Kruger Effect does not bear applicability. Instances where the sociopathology of the anosognosiac have crossed the line into abuse of both the Dunning-Kruger Effect and more importantly, those around them:
Specific instances in which the Dunning-Kruger Effect does not apply include:
1. In matters of Public Policy.
e.g. ∈ You have the right to speak up about contaminants in your food, you do not have to be a chemist or agricultural scientist.
2. In matters of Voting, Political Voice and Will.
e.g. ∈ You have the right to speak up about foreign trade policy and jobs, you do not have to be a degree holding economist.
3. In situations where professionals and non-professionals are involved. Dunning-Kruger is speaking about continuous scale comparatives between peers, not discrete breakouts between groups, as in the case of professionals and various tiers of non-professionals (from layman to dilettante) in a given discipline. From the ‘notes/discussion’ section of the Kruger and Dunning study itself:
“There is no categorical bright line that separates “competent” individuals from “incompetent” ones. Thus, when we speak of “incompetent” individuals we mean people who are less competent than their peers.”²
e.g. ∈ You have the right to speak up about where NASA’s space programs are headed, you do not have to be an astrophysicist or on NASA’s advisory board.
4. When the speaker is a victim of corporate, governmental, mafia, criminal, supposed or real expert actions or fraud.
e.g. ∈ You have the right to speak up about your vaccine injured child, you do not have to be an epidemiologist or medical doctor.
5. In matters where there is more unknown than is known, or where science has studied very little.
e.g. ∈ Einstein bore the right to speak up about Special Relativity while simply an entry level patent engineer, he was not disqualified by a previous academic C-average, nor by his not holding a PhD.
6. In matters where competency in reality only comprises simply a few memorized facts, procedure or trivia concerning the subject.
e.g. ∈ You have the right to speak up about water contamination in your community, you do not have to be involved in constructing assay sheets at your local processing plant.
7. In matters where social conformance is conflated with competency (i.e. social skeptic ‘rationality’).
e.g. ∈ You have the right to speak up about science ignoring an important issue observed in your local community, you do not have to be a degree holding scientist in that arena.
8. In matters of personal financial and household management.
e.g. ∈ You have the right to organize community to refuse a tax levied on your home for unfair reasons, you do not have to be a career politician or expert in the subject which is funded by the tax itself.
9. In matters of personal health, disease prevention and health management.
e.g. ∈ You have the right to speak up about things harming your family’s health, you do not have to be a member of Science Based Medicine.
10. In matters of personal religious practice or choice of faith.
e.g. ∈ You have the right to say that you observed something extraordinary or miraculous from a spiritual perspective, you do not have to be a priest or scientist.
11. In any matter or circumstance where the Dunning-Kruger Effect is employed to intimidate or create compliance by means of fear/ridicule.
.e.g. ∈ You have the right to speak up about unbridled immigration and population dumping, this does not make you a racist. You have the freedom and right to identify such things as acts of war.
12. When courage, risk and personal gumption override calls for caution because the need, benefit or danger entailed dictate actions of character on the part of an agent of change.
e.g. ∈ You have the right to speak up about VINDA Autism, you do not have to be a Centers for Disease Control professional, in order to demand third party review of ‘settled science.’
The study authors, had they been following the protocols of science, should have included points such as these in their commentary and counter-point acknowledgement sections. This is what ethical skeptics and scientists for that matter, do; they remain aware of and allow-for counter-point arguments. They regard them as matters of importance. Unfortunately, save for number 3. above (and only in part even for that one), Kruger and Dunning did not bear such circumspection about their own findings in their work. Another shortfall in scientific method.
Knowing how to not use a weapon is the supreme qualification for a user of that weapon. Knowing how to not commit a Dunning-Kruger Effect error in its application, ironically is a key indicator as to one’s competency under a Dunning-Kruger perspective in the first place.
¹ The Works of Thomas Jefferson: A DECLARATION BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN GENERAL CONGRESS ASSEMBLED; http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/800#Jefferson_0054-01_104
² Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: American Psychological Association, December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134; Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments; Justin Kruger and David Dunning, Department of Psychology, Cornell University. A series study conducted by survey of a series of Cornell University undergraduates about competency and self perception, meta-cognition and projection. (http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgagne/contrib/unskilled.html).
“Correlation does not prove causality.” You have heard the one-liner uttered by clueless social skeptics probably one thousand times or more. But real science rarely if ever starts with ‘proof.’ More often than not, neither does a process of science end in proof. Correlation was never crafted as an analytical means to proof. However this one-liner statement is most often employed as a means of implying proof of an antithetical idea. To refuse to conduct the scientific research behind such fingerprint signal conditions, especially when involving a risk exposure linkage, can demonstrate just plain ole malicious ignorance. It is not even stupid.
When a social skeptic makes the statement “Correlation does not prove causality,” they are making a correct statement. It is much akin to pointing out that a pretty girl smiling at you does not mean she wants to spend the week in Paris with you. It is a truism, most often employed to squelch an idea which is threatening to the statement maker. As if the statement maker were the boyfriend of the girl who smiled at you. Of course a person smiling at you does not mean they want to spend a week in Paris with you. Of course correlation does not prove causality. Nearly every single person bearing any semblance of rational mind understands this. But what the one who has uttered this statement does not grasp, while feeling all smart and skeptickey in its mention, is that they have in essence revealed a key insight into their own lack of scientific literacy. Specifically, when a person makes this statement, three particular forms of error most often arise. In particular, they do not comprehend, across an entire life of employing such a statement, that
1. Proof Gaming/Non Rectum Agitur Fallacy: Correlation is used as one element in a petition for ‘plurality’ and research inside the scientific method, and is NOT tantamount to a claim to proof by anyone – contrary to the false version of method foisted by scientific pretenders.
To attempt to shoot down an observation, by citing that it by itself does not rise tantamount to proof, is a form of Proof Gaming. It is a trick of trying to force the possible last step of the scientific method, and through strawman fallacy regarding a disliked observer, pretend that it is the first step in the scientific method. It is a logical fallacy, and a method of pseudoscience. Science establishes plurality first, seeks to develop a testable hypothesis, and then hopes, …only hopes, to get close to proof at a later time.
Your citing examples of correlation which fail the Risk Exposure Test, does not mean that my contention is proved weak.
… and yes, science does use correlation comparatives in order to establish plurality of argument, and consilience which can lead to consensus (in absence of abject proof). The correlation-causality statement, while mathematically true, is philosophically and scientifically illiterate.¹²³
2. Ignoratio Elenchi Fallacy (ingens vanitatum): What is being strawman framed as simply a claim to ‘correlation’ by scientific pretenders, is often a whole consilience (or fingerprint) of mutually reinforcing statistical inference well beyond the defined context of simple correlation.
Often when data shows a correlation, it also demonstrates other factors which may be elicited to demonstrate a relationship between two previously unrelated contributing variables or data measures. There are a number of other factors which science employs through the disciplines of modeling theory, probability and statistics which can be drawn from a data relationship. In addition these inferences can be used to mutually support one another, and exponentially increase the confidence of contentions around the data set in question.²³
3. Methodical Cynicism: Correlation is used as a tool to examine an allowance for and magnitude of variable dependency. In many cases where a fingerprint signal is being examined, the dependency risk has ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED or is ALLOWED-FOR by diligent reductive science. To step in the way of method and game protocols and persuasion in order to block study, is malevolent pseudoscience.
If the two variables pass the risk-exposure test, then we are already past correlation and into measuring that level of dependency, not evaluating its existence. If scientific studies have already shown that a chemical has impacts on the human or animal kidney/livers/pancreas, to call an examination of maladies relating to those organs as they relate to trends in use of that chemical a ‘correlation’ is an indication of scientific illiteracy on the part of the accuser. Once a risk relationship is established, as in the case of colon disorders as a risk of glyphosate intake, accusations of ‘correlation does not prove causality’ constitute a non-sequitur Wittgenstein Error inside the scientific method. Plurality has been established and a solid case for research has been laid down. To block such research is obdurate scientific fraud.²³
Calling or downgrading the sum total of these inferences through the equivocal use of the term ‘correlation,’ not only is demonstrative of one’s mathematical and scientific illiteracy, but also demonstrates a penchant for the squelching of data through definition in a fraudulent manner. It is an effort on the part of a dishonest agent to prevent the plurality step of the scientific method.
None of this has anything whatsoever to do with ‘proof.’
A Fingerprint Signal is Not a ‘Correlation’
An example of this type of scientific illiteracy can be found here (Correlation Is Not Causation in Earth’s Dipole Contribution to Climate – Steven Novella). There is a well established covariance, coincidence, periodicity and tail sympathy; a long tight history of dynamic with respect to how climate relates to the strength of Earth’s magnetic dipole moment. This is a fingerprint signal. Steven Novella incorrectly calls this ‘correlation.’ A whole host of Earth’s climate phenomena move in concert with the strength of our magnetic field. This does not disprove anthropogenic contribution to current global warming. But to whip out a one liner and shoot at a well established facet of geoscience, all so as to protect standing ideas from facing the peer review of further research is not skepticism, it is pseudoscience. The matter merits investigation. This hyperepistemology one-liner does not even rise to the level of being stupid.
Measuring of An Established Risk Relationship is Not a ‘Correlation’
An example of this type of scientific illiteracy can be found inside pharmaceutical company pitches about how the increase in opioid addiction and abuse was not connected with their promotional and lobbying efforts. Correlation did not prove causality. Much of today’s opiate epidemic stems from two decades of promotional activity undertaken by pharmaceutical companies. According to New Yorker Magazine, companies such as Endo Pharmaceuticals, Purdue Pharma and Johnson & Johnson centered their marketing campaigns on opioids as general use pain treatment medications. Highly regarded medical journals featured promotions directed towards physicians involved in pain management. Educational courses on the benefits of opioid-based treatments were offered. Pharmaceutical companies made widespread use of lobbyist groups in their efforts to disassociate opiate industry practices from recent alarming statistics (sound familiar? See an example where Scientific American is used for such propaganda here). One such group received $2.5 million from pharmaceutical companies to promote opioid justification and discourage legislators from passing regulations against unconstrained opioid employment in medical practices. (See New Yorker Magazine: Who is Responsible for the Pain Pill Epidemic?) The key here is, that once a risk relationship is established, such as between glyphosate and cancer, one cannot make the claim that correlation does not prove causality in the face of two validated sympathetic risk-dependency signals. It is too late, plurality has been established and the science needs to be done. To block such science is criminal fraud.
Perhaps We Need a New Name Besides Correlation for Such Robust Data Fit
Both of these examples above elicit instances where fake skeptic scientific illiteracy served to mis-inform, mis-lead or cause harm to the American Public. Correlation, in contrast, is simply a measure of the ‘fit’ of a linear trend inside the relationship between a two factor data set. It asks two questions (the third is simply a mathematical variation of the second):
- Can a linear inference be derived from cross indexing both data sets?, and
- How ‘close to linearity’ do these cross references of data come?
- How ‘close to curvinlinearity’ do these cross references of data come?
The answer to question number 2 is called an r-factor or correlation coefficient. Commonly, question number 3 is answered by means of a coefficient of determination and is expressed as an r² factor (r squared).³ Both are a measure of a paired-data set fit to linearity. That is all. In many instances pundits will use correlation to exhibit a preestablished relationship, such as the well known relationship between hours spent studying and academic grades. They are not establishing proof with a graph, rather simply showing a relationship which has already been well documented through several other previous means. However, in no way shape or form does that mean that persons who apply correlation as a basis of a theoretical construct are therefore then contending a case for proof. This is a relational form of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. This is a logical flaw, served up by the dilettante mind which confuses the former case, an exhibit, and conflates it with the later use, the instance of a petition for research.
Correlation Dismissal Error (Fingerprint Ignorance)
/philosophy : logic : evidence : fallacy/ : when employing the ‘correlation does not prove causality’ quip to terminally dismiss an observed correlation, when the observation is being used to underpin a construct or argument possessing consilience, is seeking plurality, constitutes direct fingerprint evidence and/or is not being touted as final conclusive proof in and of itself.
THIS is Correlation (Pearson’s PPMCC) It does not prove causality (duh…)¹²
This is a Fingerprint Signal and is Not Simply a Correlation³∋
There are a number of other methods of determining the potential relationship between two sets of data, many of which appear to the trained eye in the above graph. Each of the below relational features individually, and increasingly as they confirm one another, establish a case for plurality of explanation. The above graph is not “proving” that glyphosate aggravates diabetes rates. However, when this graph is taken against the exact same shape and relationship graphs for multiple myloma, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, bladder cancer, thyroid disease, pancreatic cancer, irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel syndrome, lupus, fibromyalgia, renal function diminishment, Alzheimer’s, Crohn’s Disease, wheat/corn/canola/soy sensitivity, SIBO, dysbyosis, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, rosacea, gall bladder cancer, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, liver impairment and stress/fatty liver disease, … and for the first time in our history a RISE in the death rates of of middle aged Americans…
… and the fact that in the last 20 years our top ten disease prescription bases have changed 100%… ALL relating to the above conditions and ALL auto-immune and gut microbiome in origin. All this despite a decline in lethargy, smoking and alcohol consumption on average. All of this in populations younger than an aging trend can account for.
Then plurality has been argued. Fingerprint signal data has been well established. This is an example of consilience inside an established risk exposure relationship. To argue against plurality through the clueless statement “Correlation does not prove causality” is borderline criminal. It is scientifically illiterate, a shallow pretense which is substantiated by false rationality (social conformance) and a key shortfall in real intelligence.
Contextual Wittgenstein Error Example – Incorrect Rhetoric Depiction of Correlation
The cartoon to the left is a hypoepistemology which misses the entire substance of what constitutes fingerprint correlation. A fingerprint signal is derived when the bullet-pointed conditions exist – None of which exist in the cartoon invalid comparison to the left – this is a tampering with definition, enacted by a person who has no idea what correlation in this context, even means. A Wittgenstein Error. In other words: scientifically illiterate propaganda. Conditions which exist in a proper correlation, or more, condition:
- A constrained pre-domain and relevant range which differ in stark significance
- An ability to fit both data sets to curvinlinear or linear fit, with projection through golden section, regression or a series of other models
- A preexisting contributor risk exposure between one set of unconstrained variables and a dependent variable
- A consistent time displacement between independent and dependent variables
- A covariance in the dynamic nature of data set fluctuations
- A coincident period of commencement and timeframe of covariance
- A jointly shared arrival distribution profile
- Sympathetic long term convex or concave trends
- A risk exposure (see below) – the cartoon to the left fails the risk exposure test.
Rhetoric: An answer, looking for a question, targeting a victim
Fingerprint Elements: When One or More of These Risk Factor Conditions is Observed, A Compelling Case Should be Researched¹²³
Corresponding Data – not only can one series be fitted with a high linear coefficient, another independent series can also be fitted with a similar and higher coefficient which increases in coherence throughout a time series both before and during its domain of measure, and bears similar slope, period and magnitude. In this instance as well, a preexisting risk exposure has been established. This does not prove causality, however is a strong case for plurality especially if a question of risk is raised. To ignore this condition, is a circumstance where ignorance ranges into fraud.
Covariant Data – not only can one series be fitted with a high coefficient, another independent series can also be observed with a similar fit which increases in coherence as a time series both before and during its domain of measure, and bears similar period and magnitude. Adding additional confidence to this measure is the dx/dy covariance, Browning Covariance, or distance covariance, etc. measure which can be established between the two data series; that is, the change in x(1)…x(n) versus y(1)…y(n). In this instance as well, a preexisting risk exposure has been established. This does not prove causality, however is a very strong case for plurality especially if a question of risk is raised. To ignore this condition, is a circumstance where socially pushed skepticism ranges into fraud.
Co-incidence Data – two discrete measures coincide as a time series both before and during its domain of measure, and bear similar period and magnitude. Adding additional confidence to this measure magnitude consistency which can be established between the two data series; that is, the discrete change in x(1)…x(n) versus y(1)…y(n). In this instance as well, a preexisting risk exposure has been established. This does not prove causality, however is a moderately strong case for plurality especially if a question of risk is raised. To ignore this condition, is a circumstance where arrogant skepticism ranges into fraud.
Jointly Distributed Data – two independent data sets exhibit the same or common arrival distribution functions. Adding additional confidence to this measure magnitude consistency which can be established between the two data series; that is, the discrete change in x(1)…x(n) versus y(1)…y(n). In this instance as well, a preexisting risk exposure has been established. This does not prove causality, however is a moderately strong case for plurality especially if a question of risk is raised. To ignore this condition, is a circumstance where arrogant skepticism ranges into fraud.
Probability Function Match – two independent data sets exhibit a resulting probability density function of similar name/type/shape. Adding additional confidence to this measure magnitude consistency which can be established between the two data series; that is, the discrete change in x(1)…x(n) versus y(1)…y(n). In this instance as well, a preexisting risk exposure has been established. This does not prove causality, however is a moderately strong case for plurality especially if a question of risk is raised. To ignore this condition is not wise.
Marginal or Tail Condition Match – the tail or extreme regions of the data exhibit coincidence and covariance. Adding additional confidence to this measure magnitude consistency which can be established between the two data series when applied in the extreme or outlier condition; that is, the discrete change of these remote data in x(1)…x(n) versus y(1)…y(n). In this instance as well, a preexisting risk exposure has been established. This does not prove causality, however is a moderately strong case for plurality especially if a question of risk is raised. To ignore this condition, is a circumstance where even moderate skepticism ranges into fraud activity.
Sympathetic Long Term Shared Concave or Convex – long term trends match each other, but more importantly each is a departure from the previous history and occurred simultaneously, offset by a time displacement, are both convex or concave and co-vary across the risk period. Adding additional confidence to this measure magnitude consistency which can be established between the two data series; that is, the discrete change in x(1)…x(n) versus y(1)…y(n). In this instance as well, a preexisting risk exposure has been established. This does not prove causality, however is a compellingly strong case for plurality especially if a question of risk is raised. To ignore this condition, is a circumstance where even moderate skepticism ranges into fraud activity.
Discrete Measures Covariance – the mode, median or mean of discrete measures is shared in common and/or in coincidence, and also vary sympathetically over time. Adding additional confidence to this measure magnitude consistency which can be established between the two data series; that is, the discrete change in mode and mean over time. In this instance as well, a preexisting risk exposure has been established. This does not prove causality, however is a moderate case for plurality especially if a question of risk is raised. To ignore this condition is not wise.
Risk Exposure Chain/Test – two variables, if technical case were established that one indeed influenced the other, would indeed be able to influence one another. (In other words, if your kid WAS eating rat poison every Tuesday, he WOULD be sick on every Wednesday – but your kid eating rat poison would not make the city mayor sick on Wednesday). If this condition exists, along with one or more of the above conditions, a case for plurality has been achieved. To ignore this condition, is a circumstance where even moderate skepticism ranges into fraud activity.
These elements, when taken in concert by honest researchers, are called fingerprint data. When fake skeptics see an accelerating curve which matches another accelerating curve – completely (and purposely) missing the circumstance wherein any or ALL of these factors are more likely in play – to say “correlation” is what is being seen, demonstrates their scientific illiteracy. It is up to the ethical skeptic to raise their hand and say “Hold on, I am not ready to dismiss that data relationship so easily. Perhaps we should conduct studies which investigate this risk linkage and its surrounding statistics.”
To refuse to conduct the scientific research behind such conditions, especially if it involves something we are exposed to three times a day for life, constitutes just plain active ignorance and maliciousness. It is not even stupid.
¹ Madsen, Richard W., ” Statistical Concepts with Applications to Business and Economics,” Prentice-Hall, 1980; pp 604 – 610.
² Gorini, Catherine A., “Master Math Probability,” Course Technology, 2012; pp. 175-196, 252-274.
³ Levine, David M.; Stephan, David F., “Statistics and Analytics,” Pearson Education, 2015; pp. 137-275.
∋ Graphic employed for example purposes only. Courtesy of work of Dr. Stephanie Seneff, sulfates, glyphosates and gmo food; MIT, september 19, 2013.
Were I a fake skeptic, wishing to obfuscate social understanding of a new set of observations or a new science, I would seek to deny this disfavored subject the lexicon necessary in developing descriptives and measures under the scientific method (Wittgenstein Error – Descriptive). I would disposition its terminology as constituting ‘made up words;’ citing it as too novel, unnecessary or too peculiar to the understanding of the first person I ever heard utter its terms. Conversely, any half witted term my allies made up would be granted unqualified and immediate gravitas, based on who said it, and who its intended victims were.
All this constitutes the gaming of lexicology in order to control access to science. To Wittgenstein, all perfidious activity, every bit the same as what he defined to be pseudoscience.
When faced with a new term, the Ethical Skeptic must adhere to a disciplined framework of how to regard the new term, and ensure that their methods of thinking do not unnecessarily sway their judgement into a domain of prejudice and ignorance. A neologism is not simply a new word. Nor does its designation, in a professional context, imply that a term designated as such is invalid or made up. The Ethical Skeptic must be diligent in their effort to not replicate these mistakes and abuses of Social Skepticism; those who employ the term ‘neologism’ (sic) in a pejorative, abusive and equivocal fashion. This constituting lexicon gaming; an attempt to filter out ideas and concepts which they disfavor or by which they are threatened.
The actual term employed, in neutral context, to frame a description of a new word is neolexia, not neologism.
To deny a subject its own descriptive and measure language, is to artificially relegate it into the realm of incoherence, independent of its verity or lack thereof. Ethical Skepticism demands that a contention be found right or wrong through diligent observation and measure, and not through ignorance born of gaming its denial of a critical language.
Neologisms, as opposed to neolexia, are very often valid and frequently employed terms and concepts, which simply have not been accepted completely into the entire public vernacular. Consider below, the difference in philosophy’s framing of each definition, as compared to the equivocal and abusive employment of the term (#3 below) – the abusive habit of today’s Social Skeptic.
Neolexia (from the Greek néo-, “new”, and lexikó, “dictionary”) ¹ ²
- a new word
- the lexicon or archive of neologism attributable to a specific person, discipline, publication, period, or event.
Neologism (legitimate, from the Greek néo-, “new”, and lógos, “speech”)¹ ² ³
- a newly coined term, word or phrase that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language¹
- a new corpora³
- a term compounded from accepted terms
- a new employment context or meaning for an existing word (excluding malapropism)³
- a new word or phrase describing a new concept
- an isolate term describing a neglected or newly critical concept
‘Neologism’ (psychology/pseudo-professional/pejorative-equivocal) ² ³
- A made up word, meaningful to only its inventor
- A feared word in the eyes of person wishing to suppress the idea it represents
The Three Tests to Qualify a Neolexia as a Neologism (and not a ‘Neologism’)
Designating a term one does not like as a ‘neologism’ (the quotes denoting employment in the pseudo-professional pejorative) is a common technique of enforcing a prejudicial Wittgenstein Descriptive Error. In general, a term is not simply a neolexia or a ‘neologism’ simply because someone has employed it to describe a concept or subject which threatens the recipient. A neologism is a word, phrase or employment which is being considered for legitimate use in describing a formerly tough-to-articulate or identify concept. In the lexicon of Social Skeptics, the term is employed, ironically as a ‘neologism’ itself (ie. wrong employment), per the following
‘Neologism’ (in Social Skepticism)
/pseudo skepticism : obfuscation methods & tools/ : a term which serves to identify, describe, frame or measure inside a subject which is threatening to the recipient – so therefore is dispositioned by the recipient as new, unnecessary or made up. A word which is falsely cited as ‘made up’ because it has been crafted, employed or uttered by a person who is disliked, or regarding a subject which the pseudo skeptic wishes to squelch.
Neologism Fallacy – falsely condemning a term by citing it to be a ‘neologism’ in the pejorative, when in fact the word is in common legitimate use, or is accepted as a neologism, or passes the three tests to qualify as a functional neologism.
Neologism Error – falsely deeming a word as a neologism when it is in fact a neolexia. Granting a word which does not qualify as a neologism, status as a neologism simply because of who originated the word, and who indeed are its intended victims.
Neologasm – excessive use of the pejorative designation of words as constituting ‘neologism,’ in order to block ideas or deny science one disfavors.
This is the instance where a person wishes to disparage a subject or person by citing it as made up, and therefore invalid. It is no different than declaring a whole subject to be a pseudoscience, in absence of any investigation or research. The disposition may indeed be correct, but the means by which the user arrives at such a disposition is pseudoscience (Wittgenstein Error).
In fact, the professional designation of a term or concept as a neologism is not a pejorative or obfuscating exercise. In general there are three qualifications which allow for a neolexia, a new word (neutrally employed), to qualify as a neologism (being considered for or newly used, to articulate a concept). These are the three logical characteristic litmus tests of such a new word – involving, its
- Isolate Employment
- Possession of a Logical Critical Path
Or as expressed in the inverse, the three qualifications which relegate a word into the bucket of pejorative ‘neologism’ (ironically we need a new word for this concept to avoid its equivocal use) are its being novel, superfluous and not necessary in articulating a specific logical critical path (see below).
A plangonophile is a doll enthusiast
1. The term has been in use for longer than 25 years (French) – NOVELTY
2. it serves as a stand alone concept, in that it does not overlap with existing terms and has a specific descriptive counterpart in discourse – ISOLATE
3. It is a necessary component in a logical critical path (describing concepts differentiating doll enthusiasm from collecting or manufacturing) – CRITICAL PATH
Therefore, plangonophile is a neologism (in the non-pejorative)†
In contrast, let’s consider the neolexia ‘truthiness’
Truthiness is a proposed neologism, outlining a quality characterizing a “truth” that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know intuitively “from the gut” or because it “feels right.”‡ This term fails the qualification to become a neologism – and is relegated to a useless neolexia because
1. The term has been in use by only one person (Stephen Colbert) for less than a year – NOVELTY‡
2. it overlaps with concepts of gut feel or intuitive grasp, common sense or confidence, and lacks a specific descriptive counterpart in discourse, other than employment in humorously attacking disparate ideas one does not like – NON-ISOLATE
3. It is NOT a necessary component in a logical critical path (it does not improve philosophy, only serves to improve rhetoric and polemic, obdurate or bandwagon discourse) – NON-CRITICAL PATH
Therefore, truthiness is a useless neolexia – a neologism (in the pejorative). Its acceptance is only driven forward by social pressure, and not the discipline of lexicology.
The Ethical Skeptic will take note that the term truthiness, nonetheless, was granted immediate entré into the ranks of neologism, based simply upon who uttered it, and who its intended victims were. This is not only pseudoscience, but social fraud. The Wittgenstein error of playing with language in order to promote or obscure political and scientific discourse to one’s liking.
Were I a fake skeptic, wishing to obfuscate social understanding that doll collecting was on the increase, I would seek to deny its terminology any role in the lexicon of that which is descriptive and measurable (Wittgenstein Error – Descriptive). I would disposition the term plangonophile as a ‘neologism’ and be incensed at the pseudoscience each time I heard it. I wold cite it as too new, or too peculiar to the understanding of the first person I ever heard mention the term. This is simply today’s social skepticism method of blocking science through the descriptives necessary in making observations and measurements. To Wittgenstein, every bit the same set of activity as what he defined to be pseudoscience.
A second technique I could employ, would be to create several dozen categories of doll collection subsets, from existing terminology (Barbie collecting, Troll Doll collecting, GI Joe collecting, American Girl Doll collecting) by means of which I could hide aggregate data and intelligence regarding the overall trends inside plangonophilia. This is the process called deconstructionism. It is a common means of obfuscating data, and blocking necessity under Ockham’s Razor.
Each of these techniques stands exemplary of the Wittgenstein Error of blocking the ability of science to develop the descriptive language, relationships and measures necessary in the advancement of science and understanding. A keen minded Ethical Skeptic is able to spot such dark intellectual work as it happens, and stand in the gap for new and developing science. You are not there to provide peer review, that will come at a later date. In the early phases of the scientific method, the Ethical Skeptic is an ally. Fully desirous of seeing what is valid and invalid concerning the new subject under contention or sponsorship.
Falsely declaring a term or measure I do not like, as a ‘neologism,’ while at the same time granting the made up expressions of my allies immediate gravitas, is habitual pseudoscience.
² Wikipedia: Neologism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism
³ Working with Specialized Language: A Practical Guide to Using Corpora, Lynne Bowker, Jennifer Pearson; Taylor & Francis, Sep 26, 2002.
† The International Dictionary of Neologisms, http://neologisms.us/
‡ Wikipedia: Truthiness, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness