The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Agency of Pseudo-Skepticism & Cultivated Ignorance

The Correlation-Causality One-Liner Can Highlight One’s Scientific Illiteracy

“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

4.  Correlation does not prove causality… however, even weaker in strength of inference is an implicit refutation by claim of coincidence.

Most often, when one poses the ‘correlation does not prove causality’ apothegm, they are attempting to enforce an implicit counter-claim to coincidence in the observed data. While this is the null, it is also most often not an actual hypothesis – nor can such a claim be made without evidence.  Most often the evidence in support of a correlation being merely coincidence, is in fact weaker than the evidence in support of causality. A position of epoche is warranted – not denial, in such circumstances.

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’

earth mag fieldAn example of this type of scientific illiteracy can be found here (Note: a former article entitled Correlation Is Not Causation in Earth’s Dipole Contribution to Climate by Steven Novella, which was dropped by Discover Magazine). 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’

Risk Exposure Exists CorrelationAn 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):

  1. Can a linear inference be derived from cross indexing both data sets?, and
  2. How ‘close to linearity’ do these cross references of data come?
  3. 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

Cor 1

This is a Fingerprint Signal and is Not Simply a Correlation³∋

diabetes and glyphosate

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

cor 2

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.

Cor 1a

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.

 Cor 1b

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.

Cor 1c

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.

Cor 1d

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.

Cor 1e

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.

 Cor 1f

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.

 Cor 1g

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.

Cor 1h

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.

 Cor 1i

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.

epoché vanguards gnosis


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.

January 17, 2016 Posted by | Argument Fallacies | , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Dark Side of SSkepticism: The Richeliean Appeal

A Richeliean Appeal is a contention which is declared correct by means of power or celebrity held on the part of the claimant. This includes instances where ‘consensus’ is declared by those influencing the consensus itself. As well, it can involve a Richeliean skeptic who encourages and enjoys a form of ‘social peer review,’ empowered via politics or a set of sycophants who are willing to enact harm to a level which the Richeliean power holder himself would not personally stoop.

Malevolence of the Richeliean Appeal

card richelieu - Copy - CopyIf you conduct research inside an issue of contention, or have a child who has been cognitively impaired through the incompetence of medical or pharma oligarchy, or had your health damaged by processed food, or have developed a new medical device, supplement or treatment, or have even innocently shown interest towards a subject which is forbidden access by Social Skepticism, then odds are you are highly familiar with the Richeliean Appeal. A Richeliean Appeal is a form of the Appeal to Skepticism, a tactic of intrigue, malevolence, fear-intimidation, high-school style social chiding or the implicit threat which is tendered to intimidate a specific person or group. It is usually implied by those who are impressed with their own celebrity, title, or social position they hold inside of a club. Many times it comes in the form of a threat to have a social clique bully a prematurely identified victim en masse. You will see this practiced by that tiny malevolent minority who hang out on social media and undertake harm on people who think differently. They have no idea that they are a joke to the great majority of Americans, and perform a great service to swing the mind of Americans away from the very movement they espouse. Anger is a sign of losing, even if framed inside a chucklehead diversion.

Hint: Weak ideas require enforcement by childish intimidation and clique bullying. Strong ideas launch movements on their own gravitas.

Social Skeptics enjoy such a perch of bully-tactic power, and use it fully to enable authority on subjects which would stand under a condition of plurality were they to be deliberated solely on ethics and evidence alone. The term is derived from the coercive behavior of Armand-Jean du Plessis, better known as French Cardinal Richelieu (1585 – 1642 ad), heralded as the father of the modern totalitarian state, Duvalism (the dispensation of the State as equal in status to God), socialized power and the modern secret police.¹ ² It is the tandem god set (Ω • ⊕) in which the Richeliean Skeptic enjoys free unmerited power, combined with a lack of being held to accountability.

The reason that Social Skeptics abet and aspire to celebrity, is the heady power of Richeliean Appeal it affords them.

Any entity, be it person, organization or nation which derives prurient satisfaction in the cruel or public punishment of those unlike themselves, or even those who have committed an offense, is an entity of an unaccountable and malevolent nature. Such, as well is the nature of SSkeptic power used as a battering ram on those who disagree with their religion.

richelieu quote - Copy - CopySocial Skepticism appreciates many of the neutral to dark techniques employed by Armand-Jean du Plessis de Richelieu, during the secretive development of his reign of power in the French court, in its own efforts to seek consensus and consolidation of power. The issue is not that everything enforced by Social Skepticism is necessarily incorrect, nor that every enforcement action itself is necessarily wrong. Rather, it is the subterfuge by which the enforcement is dealt, coupled with the intermixing of both questionable and correct conclusion alike – the failure of the ethics which declines to distinguish between the two – which renders the approach a rogue action on the part of those seeking to consolidate power. A Richeliean Appeal can be enacted supporting a contention which is correct, or possibly incorrect. The essence of a Richeliean Appeal is that, ‘correct’ is only a designation enabled by the power of the claimant. Since the claimant is in power, or has the power to harm, therefore the contention is correct by power. This includes the power of the mob or a set of sycophants willing to enact harm to a level which the Richeliean power holder would not himself personally stoop.

Richeliean Appeal to Skepticism

/Appeal to Skepticism : coercion/ : an inflation of personal gravitas, celebrity or influence by means of implicit or explicit threats of coercive tactics which can harm or seek to embarrass a victim one wishes to be silenced. Coercive tactics include threats to harm family, contact employers, ridicule, tamper with businesses, employment of celebrity status to conduct defamation activities or actions to defraud, or otherwise cause harm to persons, reputation or property. This includes the circumstance where a Richeliean skeptic encourages and enjoys a form of ‘social peer review,’ empowered via politics or a set of sycophants who are willing to enact harm to a level which the Richeliean power holder himself would not personally stoop.

Richeliean Appeal to Authority

/Appeal to Authority : coercion/ : a contention which is considered correct by means of social power or celebrity held on the part of its proponent. An appeal to consensus made by a group which influenced or measured the claimed consensus. An appeal to an authority who is notable at least in part for authoritarian or coercive measures they have employed to maintain power. Also an employment of coercive tactics which include censorship or propaganda-charging the media, establishing a large network of internal spies or sycophants, forbidding the discussion of specific matters in public or publishing of one sided science studies, patrolling of public assemblies or media forums or seeking to harm or defame who dare to disagree.

Richelieu’s Law

/Argument : locution : coercion/ : given a sufficient quantity of statements of merit, actions or associations on the part of an individual, a case can be made that one of those things either serves to condemn that individual or runs anathema to the essence of all their other contentions (apparent hypocrisy). An exploitative coercive argument which proceeds along the lines of the Richeliean quote: “Give me six lines written by the most honest man and I will find in them something to hang him.”​

The tactics employed by Social Skepticism which create the environment enabling the Richeliean Appeal currently include:

  • informal organizations never held to public or peer accountability – imputing no liability to corporate sponsors
  • staffed by a variety of non-science persons who volunteer time extra-professionally
  • claiming to represent correctness or the well being of the people
  • organized and personal public and celebrity ridicule tactics, attacks, defamation and tortious interference
  • attempts to blackmail, approach employers, publicly humiliate or anonymously harass
  • ‘investigators’ pretending to do scientific inquiry
  • academic celebrity promotion, agent, and publicist employment
  • scientific method masquerades, pretense of representing science
  • propaganda one liners, catch phrases, weapon words and circular recitations
  • domination of education unions and systems
  • enforcement of informal professional penalties for dissent
  • funded legal intimidation of those who dissent
  • squelching of free speech through warnings to media and celebrity intimidation
  • enlisting the aid of government agencies to enforce data screening
  • proselytization of children and intimidation of teachers
  • screening and qualification of those allowed into science and technical academia
  • media forum and publication channel policing, fabricating, intimidation and monitoring and
  • intimidation, monitoring and control of scientists and researchers

A Richeliean Appeal is Not Tantamount to Peer Review

peer review is not - CopyBy teaching that skepticism is the privilege sword of a closed group acting outside science, Social Skeptics labor under the fable that they are enacting a form of social peer review on behalf of science. Well, let’s dispense with three ideas right off the bat:

A.  Social Skeptics do not represent science, nor are they practicing scientific method,

B.  The critical assessments of Social Skeptics are not congruent with, nor do they stem from the same ethic as does peer review, and

C.  Peer review is issued inside of a discipline of expertise. A Richeliean Appeal to SSkepticism is issued regardless of the expertise of the ‘reviewer.’

Peer review results in the following categorical dispositions, enacted by an actual expert under qualified ethical circumstances:

  • to unconditionally accept a manuscript or a contention,
  • to accept it in the event that its authors improve it in certain ways,
  • to reject it, but encourage revision and invite resubmission,
  • to reject it outright.³

A Richeliean Appeal, in contrast, involves only

  • a prejudicial desire to dispense with a person or a subject
  • an aspiration to political power and celebrity influence of popular opinion
  • a focus on mechanisms of control and policing

a desire to enact harm on opposing persons and ideas. A willingness to look the other way when such activity is encouraged or effected by allies.

The idea in the mind of Social Skeptics that they are applying some kind of “peer review” by critiquing you or applying ‘critical thinking’ on various topics is fallacious in both its application and is justification. Scientist issue peer review inside of preparation for journal publishing or even after, through their credibility and status inside a scientific discipline.

SSkeptics like to contend that they are not conducting peer review because you are not their peer. The simple irony is that, in the vast majority of instances, they are not your peer, in ethic, expertise, experience, acumen nor discipline status. Do not let them play this trick.

Social Skeptics wish to emulate this status falsely and solely through the power enabled by the mob, and their celebrity status acquired therein. This is why you observe Social Skeptics continually clamoring for attention and celebrity status/noteworthiness.

Take such aspirations as a warning sign of those seeking the power of The Richeliean Appeal.


¹  Armand-Jean du Plessis, cardinal et duc de Richelieu. 2015. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved 12 October, 2015, from http://www.britannica.com/biography/Armand-Jean-du-Plessis-cardinal-et-duc-de-Richelieu

²  New Advent: Armand-Jean du Plessis, Duke de Richelieu; Retrieved 12 October 2015; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13047a.htm

³  Wikipedia: Scholarly Peer Review; Retrieved 12 October, 2015; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review

October 13, 2015 Posted by | Institutional Mandates, Social Disdain, Tradecraft SSkepticism | , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Gaming the Lexicology of Ideas through Neologism

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.

Brick Walls of Denial - CopyWhen 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

  • Non-Novelty
  • 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).

to qualify as a neologism - CopyFor example, let’s examine the neolexia plangonophile

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.


¹  Neolexia, http://neolexia.net/index.php?/definition/definition/

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

September 26, 2015 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Argument Fallacies | , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: