Take Warning: The blowhards of social epistemology are executing a warfare strategy. Be wise in how you play their game. They are seeking to do harm to people they hate. Not everything they say is wrong, but it is the social outcomes they consistently seek, which should compel one to be truly skeptical of their ‘correctness.’
Social Skeptics, view the world of science as a mechanism which can be manipulated and altered to accommodate non-scientific goals, or even promote false scientific conclusions if justified in their view by the moral authority entailed. In their ideology, science should be employed as the football which enables dictation of politics, beliefs, morals, standards of human interaction, tolerable or necessary human rights, denigration of specific races, peoples, genders, or groups, acceptable government, political parties and soft economic principles. Accordingly, there are 21 warning flags that I look for, in order to begin to sense that a social epistemology is at play.
Notice the similarity in tactics when comparing political candidate smear campaigns and the habits on the part of these fake science pundits.
The ‘science’ is promoted as one of the 768 correctness agenda points of Social Skepticism.
A specific gender, ethnicity, non-violent belief, nation or culture is to blame, and this must be corrected through a tax or removal of their human rights.
Any use of the terms ‘privilege’ or ‘justice’ or other term employed to masque racism or class hatred.
The science was settled before it was ever introduced to any peers, or its victims.
Evidence to the counter is squelched by non-science stakeholders (ie. skepticism, media, universities, pundits, short list journalists, etc.).
Any individual or group who questions, or is skeptical or desires more research around the idea is vilified and given a pejorative moniker.
Celebrity endorsers circuit the same affiliate and lecture network. They wear bowties to imply sophistry of knowledge.
Forums are patrolled by attention seeking and paid trolls, trained to attack persons who express opinions afoul of the social epistemology.
Legal cases challenging the epistemology are squelched and ignored.
Damages caused to families, organizations and persons are tucked away quietly.
No information regarding the negative side of the epistemology is published or drawn attention to in the media.
The stupid people, are always and only the ones who urge caution, or issue warning.
Verbatim message releases echo-chamber through skeptic outlets, blogs and tweets in about a 3 days cycle, and mostly during working hours.
Large institutions, scientific organizations and universities who have a stake in the research remain quiet and defer to activist colleagues.
Those who disagree are associatively condemned as ‘tin foil hat’ or ‘moon landing deniers’ or as being anti-science.
Much talk about ‘the evidence,’ coupled with very little actual presentation of any evidence or knowledge of the subject at all.
The ‘finished science’ is often 25 years old or older and based on very few studies, featuring zero or scant field confirmatory studies.
The lede is buried in media articles, usually a deep seated thesis which is not supported by the science cited in the article, coupled with a headline reiterating the same.
Click bait headlines.
Lots of talk about science, but very little display of actual scientific literacy.
The ‘denier’ moniker is slathered on every person who does not toe the line and talk the talk.
Social Epistemology
/philosophy : pseudo-philosophy/ When we conceive of epistemology as including knowledge and justified belief as they are positioned within a particular social and historical context, epistemology becomes social epistemology. Since many stakeholders view scientific facts as social constructions, they would deny that the goal of our intellectual and scientific activities is to find facts. Such constructivism, if weak, asserts the epistemological claim that scientific theories are laden with social, cultural, and historical presuppositions and biases; if strong, it asserts the metaphysical claim that truth and reality are themselves socially constructed.¹ ²
Moreover, in recognizing this, when social justice or the counter to a perceived privilege are warranted, short cuts to science in the form of hyper and hypo epistemologies are enacted through bypassing the normal frustrating process of peer review, and substituting instead political-social campaigns – waged to act in lieu of science. These campaigns of ‘settled science’ are prosecuted in an effort to target a disliked culture, non-violent belief set, ethnicity or class – for harm and removal of human rights.
These strong social epistemological pundits are at their essence scientific crooks. However, they are fully aware that science, inside the key verticals of its application, in general does not accept such contortions of their professional standards. As a result, Social Epistemologists must construct sciencey-looking pathways which tender both the appearance of protocol and method, and establish an Apparent Coherency. This Apparent Coherency is then enforced on society as a whole, with much intimidation and negativity as the final facet of its enforcement.
And as is true to form in a socially reenforced protocol set, the enormous social pressure brought to bear in the form of anger and mocking humor in a public and derisive context, stands as the signature and indeed red flag hallmark of Social Skepticism.
Failures and agendas in the name of science are not the result of ‘scientism’ per se, as science can never be a teleological ‘-ism’ by its very definition. Science itself is neutral. Failures with respect to science are the result of flawed or manipulated philosophy of science. When social control, change or conformance agents subject science to a state of being their lap-dog, serving specific agendas, such agents err in regard to the philosophical basis of science, skepticism. They are not bad scientists, rather bad philosophers, seeking a socialized goal. They are social skeptics.
Ethical Skepticism agrees with science that there exists no set of truth p which is only true because of a non epistemological basis of desire. I want my beliefs to be true, socially they are justified, I hold moral authority and therefore they should be made true by ‘science.’ This flawed philosophy stands as the essence of Social Skepticism. It is a concealed and deeply seated antipathy towards the protocols of real science. This is why dismissive negativity and intimidation arise so quickly in a Social Skeptic when disdained ideas, evidences or observations are broached.
An epistemology consists of both the underpinning objective elements as well as the means of logic, philosophy and method by which we arrive at the proposition p is true. “Social epistemology is the study of the social dimensions of knowledge or information.”¹ Thus is the definition framed by Alvin Goldman in his excellent article on social epistemology inside the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy resource base. He further expounds,
Social epistemology is theoretically significant because of the central role of society in the knowledge-forming process. It also has practical importance because of its possible role in the redesign of information-related social institutions.¹
However, The Ethical Skeptic bristles at such machinations, this “redesign of …institutions,” and further contends that social epistemology rarely, if ever, remains constrained to the set of social institutions. This epistemic commitment is especially objectionable when it is employed to extend control over science from such social institutions by tampering with the Knowledge Development Process to support a socially driven end goal. An Ethical Skeptic views this as a highly unethical process. A disservice to mankind for selfish and perfidious purposes. Active pseudoscience as opposed to passive categorization (existential) pseudoscience. Ethical Skepticism agrees with science that there exists no set of truth p which is only true because of a non epistemological basis of desire, q. I want my beliefs q to be true; socially they are justified, I hold moral authority and therefore they should be made true by ‘science.’ It is this antipathy towards science which is the key unacknowledged facet of Social Skepticism. This is why the top concerns for our future, between scientists and SSkeptics, don’t align at all (see Real Scientists Disagree with SSkeptics About World’s Top Concerns for the Future). Social Skeptics only use science as a tool for moral authority; it threatens their power, so they seek to control it at all costs.
Social Skepticism fully understands the obstacles to such thinking were it made manifest, and therefore seeks to establish a set of pathways around this problem. Hyperepistemological and Hypoepistemological skepticism and science are the false epistemological bases which stand in as the apparent scientific protocols supporting an agenda hinging off of a concealed social epistemological based view of science. The related definition, extracted from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is structured thusly:¹ ²
Social Epistemology
/philosophy : pseudo-philosophy/ When we conceive of epistemology as including knowledge and justified belief as they are positioned within a particular social and historical context, epistemology becomes social epistemology. Since many stakeholders view scientific facts as social constructions, they would deny that the goal of our intellectual and scientific activities is to find facts. Such constructivism, if weak, asserts the epistemological claim that scientific theories are laden with social, cultural, and historical presuppositions and biases; if strong, it asserts the metaphysical claim that truth and reality are themselves socially constructed.¹ ²
Moreover, in recognizing this, when social justice or the counter to a perceived privilege are warranted, short cuts to science in the form of hyper and hypo epistemologies are enacted through bypassing the normal frustrating process of peer review, and substituting instead political-social campaigns – waged to act in lieu of science. These campaigns of ‘settled science’ are prosecuted in an effort to target a disliked culture, non-violent belief set, ethnicity or class – for harm and removal of human rights.
Social Skeptics, view the world of science as a mechanism which can be manipulated and altered to accommodate non-scientific goals, or even promote false scientific conclusions if justified by the moral authority entailed. In their view, science should be employed as the football which enables dictation of morals, standards of human interaction, tolerable or necessary human rights, denigration of specific races, peoples, genders, or groups, acceptable government, political parties and soft economic principles. These strong social epistemological pundits are at their essence scientific crooks. However, they are fully aware that science, inside the key verticals of its application, in general does not accept such contortions of their professional standards. As a result, Social Epistemologists must construct sciencey-looking pathways which tender both the appearance of protocol and method, and establish an Apparent Coherency. This Apparent Coherency is then enforced on society as a whole, with much intimidation and negativity as the final facet of its enforcement.
And as is true to form in a socially reenforced protocols, the enormous social pressure brought to bear in the form of anger and mocking humor in a public and derisive context, stands as the signature and indeed red flag hallmark of Social Skepticism.
Social Skepticism
/pseudoscience : agenda : based upon pseudo-philosophy (hypo and hyper epistemology)/ : employment of fake a priori deduction methods combined with biased stacked provisional abductive reasoning, both employed as a masquerade of science method in order to enforce a belief set as being scientific, when it is not. It is a sponsored activist movement which functions as an integral part of the socially engineered mechanisms seeking to dominate human thought, health, welfare and education. This domination serving as means to an end, towards subjection of all mankind’s value to mandated totalitarian institutions. Institutions which serve to benefit a social elite, however which stand threatened by innate elements of mankind’s being and background.
An ideologue driven enforcement of philosophically bad science, crafted to obfuscate mankind’s understanding of critical issues inside which it holds specific goals. Its members practice a form of vigilante bullying, employed in lieu of science to dismiss disliked subjects, persons and evidence before they can ever see the light of day. This seeking to establish as irrefutable truth a core philosophy of material monism, dictating that only specific authorized life physical and energy domains exist. A comprehensive program of enforcement sought accordingly, through rather than the risk of ethical scientific methodology, instead a practice of preemptive methodical cynicism and provisional knowledge which underpins an embargo policy regarding, cultivates ignorance and institutionalizes intimidation surrounding any subject which could conceivably threaten their religion, social control and economic power.
Employment of false hypo or hyper epistemology utilized to enforce a hidden Social Epistemological based agenda seeking establishment of a specific Apparent Coherence which denies all opposing forms of knowledge. Failures and agendas in the name of science are not the result of ‘scientism’ per se, as science can never be a teleological ‘-ism’ by its very definition. Science itself is neutral. Failures with respect to science are the result of flawed or manipulated philosophy of science. When social control, change or conformance agents subject science to a state of being their lap-dog, serving specific agendas, such agents err in regard to the philosophical basis of science, skepticism. They are not bad scientists, rather bad philosophers, seeking a socialized goal. They are social skeptics.
Therefore, as one can see Social Skepticism really stems from a surreptitious social epistemological view of science. A view that science can be molded, shaped and controlled in any fashion that controlling forces see fit. Further then to be employed as moral authority to enable any policy, governance, party or social goal they initially envisioned. There exists therefore, two versions of application wherein this social epistemology is plied and inside of which it can be concealed and made to appear in the form of science. Hyperepistemology, or in general lying through facts and extremes and Hypoepistemology, or in general lying through misinformation and lax standards. Finally, the lie, as it is crafted into a social construct under a socially epistemological approach, is termed an Apparent Coherence (see graphic below).
A hyperepistemology is therefore any pseudoscience which seeks to screen out undesired conclusions by becoming excessively purist in exercise of data, observation, experiment, measurability, reporting and acceptance. It is active transactional pseudoscience. Complementarily, a hypoepistemology is any process which seeks to skip deontological rigor and step right to the prejudiced a priori categorization of a subject as being ‘disproved’ or a favored subject as being ‘consensus.’ This is existential pseudoscience.
Notice that again here, pseudoscience cannot possibly be, in a logical philosophical framework, defined as a specific topic of study. When this false definition is enforced, the whole philosophical basis of epistemology shatters into incoherency. Such is the nature of social epistemology. It only seeks Apparent Coherency, and nothing more.
Hyperepistemology
/transactional pseudoscience/ Employment of extreme, linear, diagnostic, inconsistent, truncated or twisted forms of science in order to prevent the inclusion or consideration of undesired ideas, data, observations or evidence. This undertaken in order to enforce a hidden Social Epistemological based agenda seeking establishment of a specific Apparent Coherence which denies all opposing forms of knowledge.
Hypoepistemology
/existential pseudoscience/ Relegation of disfavored subjects and observations into pathways of false science and employment of bucket pejorative categorizations in order to prevent such subjects’ inclusion or consideration in the body of active science. Conversely, acceptance of an a priori favored idea, as constituting sound science, based simply on its attractiveness inside a set of social goals. These both undertaken in order to enforce a hidden Social Epistemological based agenda seeking establishment of a specific Apparent Coherence which denies all opposing forms of knowledge.
Speaking of social epistemologies, there is an objective in all this. Finally ladies and gentlemen, this whole process introduces the Goal, of the social epistemology called the Omega Hypothesis
Omega Hypothesis (HΩ)
/philosophy : pseudoscience : social epistemology : apparent coherence/ : the argument which is foisted to end all argument, period. An argument which has become more important to protect, than science itself. An invalid null hypothesis or a preferred idea inside a social epistemology. A hypothesis which is defined to end deliberation without due scientific rigor, alternative study consensus or is afforded unmerited protection or assignment as the null. The surreptitiously held and promoted idea or the hypothesis protected by an Inverse Negation Fallacy. Often one which is promoted as true by default, with the knowledge in mind that falsification will be very hard or next to impossible to achieve.
Nihilism
Material Monism
Metaphysical Naturalism
Materialism
Skin Color Hatred, Denigration or Promotion
Political Party Promotion
Political Philosophy Promotion
Class and National Origin Hatred
Class Warfare
Religious Hatred
Obscuring of Forbidden Elements of Knowledge
Academic Hatred
Monopolization
Oligopolization
Socialism
Royalty Promotion and Enrichment
Two Pseudoscientific Mechanisms Currently in Employment
And understanding that skepticism, in its true form, is a means of preparing the mind and data sets to accomplish real science and to protect of the method of science – not specific Omega Hypothesis answers nor pseudoscientific mechanisms, it becomes incumbent upon us as Ethical Skeptics to deny this false form of skepticism, and the resulting twisted social epistemologies which result.
Social Skeptics, view the world of science as a mechanism which can be manipulated and altered to accommodate non-scientific goals, or even promote false scientific conclusions if justified in their view by the moral authority entailed. In their ideology, science should be employed as the football which enables dictation of politics, beliefs, morals, standards of human interaction, tolerable or necessary human rights, denigration of specific races, peoples, genders, or groups, acceptable government, political parties and soft economic principles. Accordingly, there are 21 warning flags that I look for, in order to begin to sense that a social epistemology is at play.
The ‘science’ is promoted as one of the 768 correctness agenda points of Social Skepticism.
An epistemology consists of both the underpinning objective elements as well as the means of logic, philosophy and method by which we arrive at the proposition p is true. “Social epistemology is the study of the social dimensions of knowledge or information.”¹ Thus is the definition framed by Alvin Goldman in his excellent article on social epistemology inside the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy resource base. He further expounds,