What is the Difference Between Ethical and Social Skepticism?

the ethical skeptic buttonEthical Skepticism is a blend of Empirical and Philosophical Skepticism, the tenets of both of which are vetted as to their efficacy in delivering value and clarity inside man’s knowledge development process. It rejects Cartesian Doubt as a racket of a priori simplistic predictive based knowledge, self delusion and methodical evasion. Instead, Ethical Skepticism dictates a mute disposition on any topic which science has not studied or the Ethical Skeptic himself has not studied. Ethical Skepticism petitions for Ockham’s Razor plurality in research when sponsorship has shown adequate necessity, and opposes all efforts to squelch such research.

Ethical Skeptics apply skepticism as one of a set of tools employed inside a life characterized by open curiosity, discipline, observation. They continually investigate in order to ask the right question in accordance with the scientific method; not defend the right answer. They bear paramount, the personal and professional ethic of defending the integrity of the knowledge development process. Skepticism is a way of preparing the mind and data sets, in order to accomplish science.

False skeptics on the other hand, bear the habit of forming negative impact social intimidation clubs, which seek to issue appeal to authority scientific conclusions, without conducting any scientific method, and then preemptively as if on behalf of science.  Philosophy, including skepticism, cannot step in and act on behalf of science. This is a critical tenet of scientific philosophy. Science is a method, based upon a discipline of thought and evidence, and is never legitimately conducted through armchair or social rationalization under the excuse of ‘critical thinking’. These fakers straw man that every scientific inquiry outside of their club’s ‘judgements’ and authority, constitutes an act of ‘belief’. ‘Pseudosciences’ or ‘extraordinary claims’ they call them. These final conclusive claims of fake skeptics are conducted in lieu of science, mostly adopted in absence of any evidence whatsoever, and are not plied simply upon the upon claims themselves. The ultimate goal is to ply them imperiously upon the topic, the sponsors, the victims, the public, scientists and future budding scientists. This constitutes malice and a corruption of science in the public trust.

They ‘establish’ their method correctness by armchair or social debunking ghosts, homeopathy, Bigfoot and UFO’s and then ply this false-method (humbly deeming it as ‘best evidence’) credibility into directing what everyone else can do with their body, doctor, voting, research, thoughts, nation, rights, political choices, faith choice and their health. This is described no better than by ‘Skeptics in the Pub’, a social skeptic organization in New Zealand.1

They call themselves ‘skeptics’ – preferring the US spelling – and see themselves as watchdogs at the crossroads between science and consumer protection.

They think carefully and logically (i.e. conduct no science) about a subject, and use the best evidence available to reach a judgment. When someone makes an extraordinary claim, they demand it’s backed up with extraordinary evidence. Faith doesn’t cut it. “It sort of feels like ‘skeptics’ is the wrong name for us,” says Wiles. “We’re not skeptics, we’re critical thinkers. When we see a piece of information, we ask, maybe even unintentionally?'” The New Zealand skeptics movement began one February afternoon in 1986, when seven academics from around the country decided to form a club.

arrogance1Social Skepticism is false a priori deduction combined with stacked provisional induction used as a masquerade of science method in order to enforce a belief set as constituting science. It is an abuse of Cartesian Doubt as a racket of a priori simplistic predictive based knowledge, self delusion and methodical evasion. It seeks an embargo of certain aspects of man’s knowledge development process. It rejects Philosophical Skepticism and employs Empirical Skepticism only when its tenets support specific knowledge embargo agendas. Instead of tendering mute disposition on any topic which science has not studied, Social Skepticism corrupts science into methodical cynicism employed to to squelch such research and enforces false interpretations of scientific conclusions to support its embargo goals.

Social Skeptics wear SSkepticism as an identity, apply intimidation and doubt only to subjects they disdain, and enforce an embargo regarding any and all observations or science which might serve to undermine their Cabal authorized ontology. They eschew data collection; instead undertaking social activism and unethical activity, any means necessary to enforce the ‘right answer’ and secure the power of their sponsor institutions. Social Skeptics abuse skepticism to act in lieu of science, not as subset thereof.