Science begins its work based upon a principle called necessity, not upon proof. Science then establishes proof, if such can be had. Popper critical rationality as it turns out, involves more than irrefutable proof, contrary to what gaming social skeptics might contend. Proof Gaming is a method of tendering an affectation of sciencey methodology, yet still effectively obfuscating research and enforcing acceptable thought.
In order for science to begin to prove the existence of the strange animal tens of thousands of credible persons report roaming in the woods, I must first bring in its dead carcass. But if I bring in its dead body, then I have no need for science to examine that such an animal exists in the first place; I have already done the science. The demand that I bring in a dead body, given a sufficient level of Ockham’s Razor necessity-driving information, is a false standard threshold for science to begin its diligence, and such a demand constitutes pseudoscience.
Now of course, Karl Popper in his brief entitled Die beiden Grundprobleme der Erkenntnistheorie contended that science should be demarcated by the proper assignment of truth values to its assertions, or ‘sentences’: ergo, science is the set of sentences with justifiably assigned truth values.¹ This was called a mindset of ‘critical rationality’.¹ It was a step above simple scientific skepticism. The task of the philosophy of science is to explain suitable methods by which these assignments are then properly made.¹ However, one can extend the philosophy of science to construct elaborate methods, which prevent the assimilation of ideas or research which one disfavors, by gaming these methods such that philosophy stands and acts in lieu of science. One such trick of conducting science research by means of solely philosophy, all from the comfort of one’s arm chair, is called Proof Gaming. Popper contended later in his work, as outlined by the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy here:
As a consequence of these three difficulties [the problem or necessity of induction] Popper developed an entirely different theory of science in chapter 5, then in Logik der Forschung. In order to overcome the problems his first view faced, he adopted two central strategies. First, he reformulated the task of the philosophy of science. Rather than presenting scientific method as a tool for properly assigning truth values to sentences, he presented rules of scientific method as conducive to the growth of knowledge. Apparently he still held that only proven or refuted sentences could take truth values. But this view is incompatible with his new philosophy of science as it appears in his Logik der Forschung: there he had to presume that some non-refuted theories took truth values, that is, that they are true or false as the case may be, even though they have been neither proved nor refuted [William of Ockham’s ‘plurality’]. It is the job of scientists to discover their falsity when they can. (IEoP)¹
Social skeptics will cite the base logic of Popper’s first work, yet omit his continued work on induction (Logik der Forschung) – as a process of sleight-of-hand in argument. So, critical rationality as it turns out, involves more than irrefutable proof, contrary to what gaming social skeptics might contend. Science begins its work based upon a principle called necessity, not upon proof. Science then establishes proof, if such can be had. Sadly, much of science cannot be adjudicated on anything like what we would call iron-clad proof, and instead relies upon a combination of falsified antithetical alternatives or induction based consilience.
The most anti-science position one can adopt is the insistence that the scientific method consists of one step: 1. Proof.
Proof gaming is the warning flag that someone neither understands, but even moreover, is terrified of science.
The gaming of this reality constitutes a process of obfuscation and deceit called Proof Gaming. Proof Gaming is the process of employing dilettante concepts of ‘proof’ as a football in order to win arguments, disfavor disliked groups or thought, or exercise fake versions or standards of science. Proof gaming presents itself in seven speciations. In the presence of sufficient information or Ockham’s Razor plurality, such tactics as outlined below, constitute a game of pseudoscience. Posing the appearance of science-sounding methods, yet still enabling obfuscation and a departure from the scientific method in order to protect the religious ideas one adopted at an early age. On the internet this is known as sea lioning.
/philosophy : deception : fake skepticism/ : is a type of Internet trolling which consists of bad-faith requests for evidence, recitations, or repeated questions, the purpose of which is not clarification or elucidation, but rather an attempt to derail a discussion, appeal to authority as if representing science or ultimate truth, or to wear down the patience of one’s opponent through half listening and repeated request. May involve invalid repetitive requests for proof which fall under a proof gaming fallacy and highlight the challenger’s lack of scientific literacy.
Let’s examine the seven types of this common social skeptic bad science method, formal and informal fallacy.
/philosophy : argument : pseudoscience : false salience/ : employing dilettante concepts of ‘proof’ as a football in order to win arguments, disfavor disliked groups or thought, or exercise fake versions of science. Asking for proof before the process of science can ostensibly even start, knowing that plurality is what begins the scientific method not proof, and further exploiting the reality that science very seldom arrives at a destination called ‘proof’ anyway. Proof gaming presents itself in seven speciations:
Catch 22 (non rectum agitur fallacy) – the pseudoscience of forcing the proponent of a construct or observation, to immediately and definitively skip to the end of the scientific method and single-handedly prove their contention, circumventing all other steps of the scientific method and any aid of science therein; this monumental achievement prerequisite before the contention would ostensibly be allowed to be considered by science in the first place. Backwards scientific method and skipping of the plurality and critical work content steps of science. A trick of fake skeptic pseudoscience, which they play on non-science stakeholders and observers they wish to squelch.
Fictitious Burden of Proof – declaring a ‘burden of proof’ to exist when such an assertion is not salient under science method at all. A burden of proof cannot possibly exist if neither the null hypothesis or alternative theories nor any proposed construct possesses a Popper sufficient testable/observable/discernible/measurable mechanism; nor moreover, if the subject in the matter of ‘proof’ bears no Wittgenstein sufficient definition in the first place (such as the terms ‘god’ or ‘nothingness’).
Herculean Burden of Proof – placing a ‘burden of proof’ upon an opponent which is either arguing from ignorance (asking to prove absence), not relevant to science or not inside the relevant range of achievable scientific endeavor in the first place. Assigning a burden of proof which cannot possibly be provided/resolved by a human being inside our current state of technology or sophistication of thought/knowledge (such as ‘prove abiogenesis’ or ‘prove that only the material exists’). Asking someone to prove an absence proposition (such as ‘prove elves do not exist’).
Fictus Scientia – assigning to disfavored ideas, a burden of proof which is far in excess of the standard regarded for acceptance or even due consideration inside science methods. Similarly, any form of denial of access to acceptance processes normally employed inside science (usually peer review both at theory formulation and at completion). Request for proof as the implied standard of science – while failing to realize or deceiving opponents into failing to realize that 90% of science is not settled by means of ‘proof’ to begin with.
Observation vs Claim Blurring – the false practice of calling an observation or data set, a ‘claim’ on the observers’ part. This in an effort to subjugate such observations into the category of constituting scientific claims which therefore must be now ‘proved’ or dismissed (the real goal: see Transactional Occam’s Razor Fallacy). In fact an observation is simply that, a piece of evidence or a cataloged fact. Its false dismissal under the pretense of being deemed a ‘claim’ is a practice of deception and pseudoscience.
As Science as Law Fallacy – conducting science as if it were being reduced inside a court of law or by a judge (usually the one forcing the fake science to begin with), through either declaring a precautionary principle theory to be innocent until proved guilty, or forcing standards of evidence inside a court of law onto hypothesis reduction methodology, when the two processes are conducted differently.
Proof by Non-falsifiability (Defaulting) – by selecting and promoting a pet theory or religious tenet which resides inside the set of falsification-prohibited constructs, SSkeptics establish popular veracity of favored beliefs, by default. Since their favored theory cannot be approached for falsification, it would be pseudoscience to compete it with other falsifiable constructs and claim it to be an outcome of the Scientific Method. Therefore the scientific method is disposed of, the non-falsifiable theory is assigned a presumption of truth, and furthermore can never be disproved. A flavor of unseatable ‘King of the Hill’ status is established for pet SSkeptic beliefs.
All of these tactics are common practices which abrogate the role and discipline of science. Additionally, a key set of symptoms to look for, in determining that Proof Gaming is underway, are when
one of these tactics is conducted inside a media spotlight, and when
every media outlet is reciting the same story, and same one liner such as ‘extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence’, verbatim.
This is an indicator that a campaign is underway to quash a subject.
The sad reality is, that on most tough issues, any one single person or small group of outsiders is poorly equipped to prove a subject beyond question. Popper recognized this later in his life work. We simply do not have the resources and time to accomplish such a task. SSkeptics know this and use it to their advantage. The people who are calling for research for example on the connection between cognitive delays in children and the potential role which immunizations have had on this, are simply asking for science to do the research. The response they receive is “You can’t prove the link,” thus we are justified in waging a media campaign against you and scientifically ignoring this issue. This is Proof Gaming. Complicating this is the fact that the issue is broader than simply MMR and Thimerosal (the majority body of current study), involving the demand for science to research the causes of valid skyrocketing levels of developmental delays, autoimmune disorders, and learning disabilities in our children. The issue bears plurality and precaution, but is answered with ignorance. The Proof Gamers who sling epithets such as “Deniers” and “Anti-vaccinationistas” and “Autistic Moms” are committing scientific treason. One should note that the handiwork of such SSkeptics is rarely characterized by outcomes of value or clarity, is typically destructive and control oriented, and is reliably made media-visible (see our next Poser Science series on the tandem symbiosis between virtue signalling and malevolence).
Hype and name calling has no place in pluralistic research, and the media pundits who commit this are practicing pseudoscience plain and simple. Once plurality has been established, the games should be over. But not for Proof Gamers. Attacking proponents who have done case research to call for further science (not proving the subject) for not “proving beyond a shadow of a doubt,” their contentions, is an act of pseudoscience.
This fake demand for proof before research is Proof Gaming, is an abrogation of the Scientific Method and is Pseudoscience.
By focusing on skepticism as a method, outside of science, of disposing of people, ideas and observations, one corrupts the discipline into nothing more than that of a practice of methodical cynicism. Under this errant version of skepticism large groups of smart people can end up arriving at an ignorance based conclusion very easily. Real skepticism, as exhibited inside Ethical Skepticism, combines elements of traditional skepticism, under the principle of plurality, with the goals of value and clarity.
Why Sagan and Shermer are Wrong: False Dilemma Skepticism
Below we retract Social Skepticism back to its core basis of Descartes’ Cartesian Doubt and outline how Ethical Skepticism, in contrast, draws its tenets from the most value laden elements of the three classic (and one modern) approaches to the knowledge development process. The contrast resides in no better form than when framed against much of the false wisdom put forth by celebrity SSkeptics over the years. For example, in the oft touted words of Carl Sagan:
“What is Skepticism? It’s nothing very esoteric. We encounter it every day. When we buy a used car.”
Point 6 of the Baloney Detection Kit: Where does the preponderance of evidence point? – Carl Sagan¹
As much as I loved Cosmos and read many of his books which inspired me in my youth towards a science and engineering career, unfortunately Carl Sagan was wrong (see link) here, as this is not skepticism. This is simply a guide to methodical cynicism (a method of being a cynic, while at the same time convincing yourself you are not a cynic). Carl has purposely conflated human tactical presumption and the exercise of dogma/stereotype with the ethical mindset which facilitates the process of knowledge development. True Skepticism alerts to the condition of not holding sufficient evidence, or in the asking of the wrong question. A used car salesman (or person) might burn you if you do not collect your data, and you do not observe before pretending to ask the right question. In other words, fail to be skeptical of self. They do not burn you simply because of what job they hold, who they are or that you are involved with them in the sale of a used car. If we go out and develop a research study which proves that used car salesmen are hired based upon being or trained to be more corrupt than the general population handling large money negotiations, then we will have developed that conclusion by the disciplines and method of science, not ‘skepticism’ of car salesmen acting in lieu of science. We will then need to change the law. The latter presumption is simply human prejudice masquerading as science, so we do not have to undertake the gumption, epoché and curiosity requisite in actually studying the issue of buying a used car in the first pace. This process alluded to by Sagan simply serves to cultivate ignorance. It is not skepticism in the least. Where we failed in skepticism in this process is the first rule of ethical skepticism: being skeptical of our selves and that we have the information and observation basis to ask the right question.
Healthcare will also burn us all and destroy our economy soon through overdriven costs, fake industry exclusivity and privilege of expertise/access to treatments, if we do not question those who craft and pay to have its policy legislated. But do we question Science Based Medicine, which promotes this present healthcare film-flam? No. Because, in broach of skepticism, we have declared them in advance to be the ‘good guy.’ They have sought to step between the public and block our access to government – remove rights and afford power to withhold information, to Crony institutions. This is not skepticism in the least. Their claims to be ‘evidence based’ fall hollow on philosophically trained ears (see Kilkenny’s Law). Skepticism is about opposing mechanisms and institutions who seek power and illegal trust advantage by the restriction of information and rights. Both the pigeon-holing of the used car salesperson and the blessing of Science Based Medicine pretenses results from what is called in ethical skepticism: cultivated ignorance.
This Sagan/Shermer approach of identifying the good guys and bad guys and good subjects and bad subjects and good observations and bad observations in advance is simply an exercise in human tactical presumption and prejudice. It is evidenced in today’s skeptically crafted and inappropriate use of the term pseudoscience. In other words Methodical Cynicism. So on everything else in our lives besides used cars, we can relax and not question? This example foisted by Sagan bears nothing whatsoever in common with skepticism. It is the pretense, or M’ in the Novick sense.
Carl habitually conveyed false depictions of what indeed is skepticism; conflating it in the quote below with cynicism and completely missing the fact that skepticism involves precisely an active, researching and open mind. Pretending that possessing an open mind is somehow the opposite of skepticism, and involves giving all ideas ‘equal validity.’ In his mad rush to pummel this strawman of what a researching open mind is, he attempts to foist below – that the purpose of skepticism is therefore the alternative: to force most-likely conclusions in lieu of scientific research (see Garbage Skepticism).
This false dilemma (bifurcation fallacy with a call to choose side) about what skepticism entails has resulted in a mis-education of the public as to the definition and ethic of skepticism – one which affords the cynic a comfortable hiding place inside of science. We continue with Carl Sagan’s quote:
“If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn anything new. You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling the world. But every now and then, a new idea turns out to be on the mark, valid and wonderful. If you are too much in the habit of being skeptical about everything, you are going to miss or resent it, and you will be standing in the way of understanding and progress.
But if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful as from the worthless ones. If all ideas have equal validity then you are lost, because then, it seems to me, no ideas have any validity at all.
Some ideas are better than others. The machinery for distinguishing them is an essential tool in dealing with the world. And it is precisely the mix of these two modes of thought that is central to the success of science.”
Nor does true skepticism simply combine “empirical rigor and imaginative whimsy” as Michael Shermer puts it. One will notice that this is the same exact bifurcation fallacy as Sagan cited; Shermer having simply re-worded it so that he could take credit for the thought at a later date. On the personal level, whimsy is a boast of self-serving entertainment, while empirical rigor is often a self delusion as to intellectual prowess and ability to target shoot. A delusion wherein once we play in the fantasy role that we alone represent science, thereafter every thought we possess and every belief we hold is ’empirically based.’ This especially when both whimsy and rigor are applied as an excuse for lazy provisional skepticism, in lieu of science. Both form the mental chewing gum we employ to deceive ourselves into thinking we are “open minded” and have done our job – and can now make a comfy conclusion from which to demonstrate to those we wish to impress, our skill in fealty to truth.
This is a game of intellectual idea skeet shooting, attended by our self-appreciation as science, applauding to the powdered explosion of every whimsical skeet of busted bunk. It habituates one into committing an Existential and Transactional Occam’s Razor Fallacy when faced with any challenging argument. It is trained methodical cynicism.
Moreover, this arrogant mentality is all centered on the idea that since we are a skeptic, we are now science too, and therefore are no longer in need of personal gumption and curiosity. We can assume sufficient equipage is held to be able to make a scientific determination, in lieu of science. Gumption is the drive to research and seek; curiosity a dissatisfaction with pat answers coupled with the mental discipline of withholding conclusion (epoché) until we are able to undertake the monumental task to fully observe. “Empirical rigor and imaginative whimsy” when applied at a personal level as ‘skepticism,’ all occur in a closed domain. Armchair, academic, bookshelf, aged-tenure pretend science. In a closed domain the only next step left is to throw up one’s hands and guess on the most likely conclusion based solely on what one knows right now (see Novella’s ‘provisional knowledge’ in Garbage Skepticism). None of this faldara is science. This is the essence of fake skepticism.
“Stupidity consists in wanting to reach conclusions. We are a thread, and we want to know the whole cloth.”
~ Gustave Flaubert (Madame Bovary author and French Literary Realist, circa 1850-1880)
In contrast to Michael Shermer’s teachings, true skepticism challenges the notion that we have completed the knowledge development process and have vetted thoroughly what we regard as being assumed to be ’empirical.’ Nor is science constrained to only the academic sciences, as Mr. Shermer contends in his editorial in the June 2015 Scientific American. This false equivocation of the word ‘science’ to mean only the academic sciences, affords skepticism therefore tactic permission to be applied ‘outside science’ and therefore be employed in any fashion deemed useful to one who has declared themselves to be a skeptic (since they cannot, quod erat demonstrandum, be an actual scientist). Ethical Skepticism eschews all of Shermer’s ideas that 1) we must immediately tender a disposition or disposal of an idea, 2) that the actual and correct empirical knowledge base has been fairly represented by Social Skepticism, 3) that anything other than the conforming explanation is ‘whimsy’ and 4) that anyone can act as an authority on anything provided they apply (outside of science and method) skepticism, empiricism and reason. These are all beliefs of a fake skeptic.
Both Sagan and Shermer imply that skepticism is the process of applying personal brilliance and current understanding in lieu of scientific method to arrive at most likely conclusions. This is the process of one acting in lieu of science.
Protecting the integrity of the methods of science is not the same thing as tendering conclusions in lieu of science. This is the litmus test of Ethical Skepticism.
These principles are embodied inside The Riddle of Skepticism:
The Riddle of Skepticism
Through claiming skepticism, one has struck the tar baby and can no longer plead denial of their action in contending philosophy. With the exception of man’s inalienable natural rights, the discipline of philosophy, even an examination as to how we go about developing knowledge, cannot be employed as a means to bypass science and pretend to act in its place, as this is not the purpose of philosophy. Skepticism, the philosophy in defense of the knowledge development process (science), is likewise bound by this construct.
As generals are experts at tactics of war and banks expert in the transfer and exchange of money, neither bears the right however to dictate the conduct of their citizens, nor who should be conquered nor what entities are to do with their capital. In similar analogue, an expert inside a subject of science cannot also presume to dictate to at-risk stakeholders what they must enact with regard to that science, nor tamper with the ramifications of its disposition inside the public trust. As a skeptic therefore, I cannot tell science how to do its job, but I can assert my rights as its at-risk stakeholder – even on matters which are metaphysical in nature. Science is the property of us all and it is the job of skepticism to defend that inalienable right.
The question one must ask them self, before venturing into this hall of mirrors called skepticism is not, whether or not I can establish a likelihood of being right or wrong on a matter. The question in the mind of the ethical skeptic should be “If I were wrong, would I even know it?” and “If I were wrong, would I be contributing to harm?” This is the focus of the philosophy of skepticism and not this indolent business of leveraging one’s current limited knowledge into a pretense of doubting or ‘evaluating claims’ demanded upon a silver platter. Such self deception constitutes merely cynicism and a pretense of representing science. Therefore, defending the integrity of the knowledge development process is betrayed once one starts tendering conclusions in lieu of it.
Science is the process of knowledge development and the body of accepted knowledge such process serves to precipitate. Pseudo science is a process of corrupted science method employed inside a pretense of representing science – but inside that same constraint can never be ‘a body of unacceptable knowledge’ as this violates objective logic, domain theory as well as skepticism itself. Pseudo skepticism therefore, is a process of corrupted philosophy employed inside a deciding in lieu of or pretense of representing science.
Doubt, belief, ignorance of risk, along with social pressure to accede to stacked provisional knowledge; therefore, stand as the raw materials which are spun into the fabric of the lie. This is why the ethical skeptic relies upon the suspension of these things – embodied in the philosophy of epoché. Rather than decide for himself what is true and untrue, instead he robs the lie spinner (even if himself) of the raw material he desperately needs. He is not denying knowledge, rather denying the tradecraft of the lie.
Once plurality is established inside an argument, if something indeed be false, it should eventually betray its falsification through accrued intelligence. And in being found wrong, become highly informative in the process. If we choose instead to maintain an a priori intolerance of a subject as being wrong, and then further choose to block its research through the authority of clever apothegm, then no probative critical path development (intelligence) can ever be undertaken consequently. Wrong and seeing, is a world better state than is correct and blind.
This untrod horizon of pure skepticism therefore lies fallow and misunderstood through the sleight-of-hand wherein Pyrrhonistic epoché is straw man defined as a ‘denial of knowledge’. This is philosophical domain ineptness – and creates the false dilemma that methodical cynicism is therefore the only bifurcated alternative offered to the seeker of truth. Much of our ignorance and suffering today stems from a misunderstanding of these key principles.
There are three types of person. Those who create great ideas, those who pan them, and those who take the credit for them. Strive always to be the former. The latter will most often secretly reward an ability to create value through ideas; while at the same time ignoring the midmost: the doubter, debunker and cynic. These characters reside in a perpetual state of resentment towards creatively intelligent minds, accentuated by a ripe frustration over the lack of recognition their ‘critical thinking skills’ beget. Their distress mandates the formation of clubs which offer the means of celebrity and self aggrandizement they so desperately crave. Never fathoming that their ilk come at a dime-a-dozen. Therefore, take this as the lesson of skepticism as well. It is a discipline of value creation, and not one of critique.
~ The Ethical Skeptic
Ethical Skepticism in contrast detects pretense or premature empirical rigor, and dismisses the idea that humans naturally know how and when to ask the right question, and what data to base that question upon. Michael Shermer will imply that science has proved his religion Nihilism true, and then through a process of inverse negation demonstrate that your subject, your observation and indeed you, are therefore irrelevant. True skepticism examines (even our own) furtive claims to knowledge first, before pretending to examine seemingly contradictory observations, data, intelligence, sponsors or ideas. And then, it refuses to immediately dismiss those elements (and yes, even sometimes their ‘claims’) until we have better knowledge. Ethical Skepticism is Boolean idempotent, as it does not seek to filter or alter for its own goals, the underlying data it surveys; rather, it catalogs them all. Michael spins the game that observations, data, ideas and people must be evaluated and disposed of immediately upon encounter, so that later arguments will have a predisposed favorable playing field. Moreover in fashion as if the stage role Pollyanna skeptic were an erstwhile version of Popeye in a fight; all his enemies lining up to do combat with him and be defeated, one at a time. This is the Transactional Occam’s Razor Fallacy error, which along with the Fictus Scientia Fallacy are two of the central sleight-of-hand techniques employed by false skeptics.
This fundamental mis-definition resides at the heart of the conflict between those who squelch science in the name of their own religion, and those who conduct actual research. Skepticism is NOT the “evaluation of claims based on personal experience;” rather, it is the mindset which allows that experience to be accrued in the first place. In science, and I know this is a shocker, science evaluates claims, not our pre-prejudices. And the only way science can accrue the tackle necessary in conducting this evaluation, is through Ethical Skepticism. Not prejudicial doubt and data filtering, as that constitutes a process which will only result in finding what one is looking for. One is not born magically all knowing, nor does an academic youth correct this weakness – and if one presumes such – much deleterious result will come from such a boast. If you presume all used car salesmen to be fraudsters, you will make just as many mistakes as those who presume them all to be honest. It is your ability to understand the information sets and questions necessary in grasping the nature of used car sales which exhibits skepticism on your part. Not your prejudice about people.
This boast, this a priori prejudice of ‘what is’ and ‘what is not’ indeed stands as the most extraordinary claim in the fake skeptic’s quiver of boasts. The claim to absolute knowledge along with the divorce of one’s mind from the need to accrue any more. As you can see in the graphic to the right, a MiHoDeAL claim to knowledge is an example of our error in making grandiose boasts about what we think we know. Our pre-adopted prejudices are the weak link in our skeptical minds, the practice which allows us to fall prey to religious thinking. In contrast, real Skepticism in reality, is a method of preparing the mind and data sets to do actual science – not to conclude it in one fell swoop of personal brilliance.
The Essential Code of Ethical Skepticism: Epoché vanguards Gnosis
Ethical Skepticism is a blend of Empirical and Philosophical Skepticism, the tenets of both of which are vetted through Ockham’s Razor and the scientific method, as to their efficacy in delivering value and clarity inside man’s knowledge development process. It rejects today’s versions of Cartesian Doubt as a racket of a priori simplistic predictive based knowledge, self delusion and methodical cynicism. Instead, Ethical Skepticism dictates a mute disposition on any topic which science has not studied, there is simply not enough data on or the Ethical Skeptic himself has not studied. This is called the state of Epoché. It is the vanguard which links both the deontological and consequentialist facets of traditional ethics. Ethical Skepticism petitions for Ockham’s Razor plurality in research when sponsorship has shown adequate necessity, and opposes all efforts to squelch such research. The context of ethics employed here is deontological in as far as the adherence to standards of protocol, such as the real scientific method, are regarded as the standards suitable to direct our actions. Yet, still consequentialist from the perspective that the outcomes of value and clarity manifest as the signature handiwork of those who practice such ethics.
The Deontological Fulcrum of Ethical Skepticism: Ockham’s Razor and The Principle of Plurality
The inputs into the Ethical Skepticism process involve three key steps necessary in introducing Ockham’s Razor plurality. Three key steps which are blocked, ignored and obscured by modern efforts to enforce ignorance. Plurality is both the condition where one justifiable avenue of research is no longer warranted under the current conditions of intelligence inside a discipline; and as well, the condition where no single faceted explanation is sufficient to encompass the explanatory basis of a set of observations. These conditions are termed ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ plurality (or that which has departed for necessity from the singular or simple). These principles are outlined in the graphic to the right:
Observation – the first step in the scientific method is not “Ask a Question,” it is Observation. Observation is one of the central character traits and habits of an Ethical Skeptic. It is fed by an incessant curiosity and dissatisfaction with pat answers.
Intelligence – Intelligence is not personal acumen, but rather the assimilation, retention, cladistics and processing of observations such that they are transformed into useful value. Nothing is thrown away through Knowledge Filtering. Every observation offers value of some kind. In military intelligence, lies are just as important as are truths, each tells us something more and more as we begin to construct an analytical framework.
Necessity – the point at which Observation and Intelligence – or even a stand alone event, developed or observed by sponsors (and hopefully science, but sponsors when science has been misled by Social Skeptics), have provided sufficient predictive or falsifying evidence which mandates that a sole explanatory approach to a problem is no longer warranted.
The principal role of Social Skepticism is to thwart the Observation – Intelligence – Necessity process at all costs. In this fashion, any prejudicial question maybe be asked for testing – thereby emasculating the effectiveness of the scientific method. The true application of skepticism involves the principle of Parsimony as follows:
Parsimony – the resistance to expand explanatory plurality or descriptive complexity beyond what is absolutely necessary, combined with the wisdom to know when to do so
When parsimony argues for ‘simplicity’ it is referencing the term in contrast to complicated-ness, not the principle of complexity. We must expect complexity in our epistemology and not fear it. Use of the equivocal term ‘simple’ to oppose complexity as well is a method of deception, which constrains incrementalism to only develop along pathways of expectation. This is pseudoscience.
The Valid Consequentialist Outcomes of Ethical Skepticism: Value and Clarity
The conclusion of these three steps, then introduces Ockham’s Razor plurality: The existence of more than one explanatory avenue of research. In absence of these three steps, the Ethical Skeptic contends that science cannot “Ask a Question.” Therefore the outcomes of Ethical Skepticism are not ‘conclusions and claims’ as the dilettante believe. The outcomes of Ethical Skepticism, are:
Value – providing
knowledge increase or accretion
developing a business which serves, produces and/or employs
falsifies an oppressive belief
falsifies an oppressive movement
improves our ecosystem and sustainability
enables a more successful governance
supports ethical military capability
makes money through a provision of equal value
Clarity – exhibited by
ability to describe an opponent’s position without mocking
integrity and mental capacity to hold Epoché on issues of plurality
ability to hold observations without knowledge filtering
ability to cogently outline a problem
ability to bring the right data and argument to bear
the over-riding desire to apply inquiry over enforcing established answers
the ability to outline the scientific method in straightforward and accurate fashion
the ability to inspire through presentation, other than simply those in your club
You will notice that – in Ethical Skepticism – nowhere is the burden placed on the adherent to ‘evaluate claims’ or speak in lieu of science nor enforce correct answers or simplest explanations. These activities betray a mind which is ill prepared to handle the questions science is meant to address. Skepticism is a means of preparing the mind and data sets to perform science. That is it.
It is incumbent upon us to promote genuine skeptical thought and decry pseudo-skepticism, imperious institutional doctrines and the cultivation of ignorance.
¹ The Burden of Skepticism, Carl Sagan, Skeptical Inquirer, vol. 12, Fall 1987; “The Fine Art of Baloney Detection.”
Elitist Philosophy of SSkepticsm: You either accede to Nihilism, or you are unacceptable.
(/ˈnaɪ.ɨlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.ɨlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical doctrine that suggests the negation of one or more of the reputedly meaningful or non-material aspects of life. Socially enforced metaphysical or pseudo scientific naturalism.
The Tradecraft and doctrinal methodology of Social Skepticism is formulated to advocate and enforce the One True Religion. Metaphysical Naturalism, a very valid approach to philosophy in the generic sense, only becomes the religion of Nihilism when one group begins to enforce it on society, education, employers and science, or exaggerate the findings of science in order to boast that it has disproved the existence of a myriad of things, which also happen to be disliked by the claimant. It is embodied in this principle:
Socially enforced Metaphysical, Material Monist or Pseudo Scientific Naturalism. The substitution ontology which took the place of Abrahamic Religion in Western academia. The cult and religious doctrine enforcing absolute knowledge as to those things which are deemed ‘natural;’ moreover that nothing exists outside the materials, energies, life forms, features and principles comprised inside a pre-approved realm of understanding. A religious presumption that only the physical is real, and that the mental or spiritual can be reduced solely to the physical. A presumption that all observations of phenomena related to consciousness stem from solely a neural configuration of a single biological source.
It is justified through specious and selective application of the experimental method; attributing its false empirical basis to a pretense standard of evidence, measurability and repeatability. Rather, Nihilism is an unsubstantiated set of pseudo-scientific claims employed as an instrument to squelch freedom of speech, qualify entrants into scientific and academic professions, screen topics under an embargo policy regarding access to science, control and direct institutions, establish social power; and in similar fashion to its Abrahamic religious precedent, leverage the resulting pervasive ignorance into a position of absolute subjugation of mankind.
SSkeptics enforce just such a religion through a mis-definition of the scientific method as only comprising the experimental method, without any supporting or predictive studies (falsification is difficult in this arena) and by conflating their religious metaphysical beliefs with atheism in a hope that most people will not realize the difference. Remember, the Ethical Skeptic does not require a mystical personification to stand as the qualifying mark of a religion. The Metaphysical Naturalist will attempt to imply that there only exists two domains of belief – the bearded grandfather deity, or their religion of the physical only. They will intimate that no alternatives exist. This straw man framing betrays what the Metaphysical Naturalist really fears, that which they profoundly avoid resides in the domain they skip over.Shooting down the grandfather patriarch in the sky is easy, but in order to win in finality, the Metaphysical Naturalist must also conflate and enforce their targeted message with science and atheism, inside a Lie of Allegiance. To the Ethical Skeptic, the only possible demarcation which logically constitutes defining of a ‘religion’ is when an initiate to the rite is:
The Establishment of Religion – The compulsory adherence to an idea around which testing for falsification is prohibited.
A. Told he must accede to an idea as a prerequisite to be regarded as acceptable – (You must accept my contention that Science has rigorously falsified everything I dislike)
If you are a science or technology professional, and you do not adhere to Nihilism, it is best that you keep quiet about it.
B. Is prohibited from testing that idea for falsification – (This contentions on my part are not to be questioned – applying the scientific method inside disapproved subjects or challenging SSkeptic agendas is a foolish waste of time which will carry enforced penalties).
Nihilism, as a hypothesis, can be falsified. In fact, in an ethical reduction hierarchy under the scientific method, it should be the first hypothesis to be tested for falsification. It is the great extents to which Social Skeptics will go, to block falsification based topic access to the scientific method, which is indicative of their secret doubt, regarding their religion of choice.
To the Ethical Skeptic – this circumstance is the Whole Gale alert flag of a religion – the club in which he is unethically coerced into supporting, by less-than-honorable proponents of the club who do not fully grasp the unethical nature of their actions, or even more commonly and worse, …do.
To the Ethical Skeptic, enforcedMetaphysical Naturalism is a religion, plain and simple (MN). It is not exactly the same thing as Atheism. Atheism is the objection to personified deities, and sometimes includes adherence to MN tenets. One can be an Atheist and still believe in Earthly alien visitation, for example. Religious Metaphysical Naturalism however, is more accurately termed “Empty Set” -ism, or more commonly: Nihilsm – the firmly held and unscientific belief that nothing resides outside the bounds of what I choose as natural, the sets of life, physical energy and material domains which are approved. The Ethical Skeptic regards this contention set no more or less valid than any other unsubstantiated claim, except where actual science testing supports its specific prejudices. In reality, this religion skips right past the scientific testing however, assumes the robes of inerrant revelation knowledge, and hops right on into King-of-the-Hill presumption gaming. Once in power, is assumed true and can never be disproved because no one who values their career will contest it. The fact that it does not feature a deified personification etched into its stained glass institutional adornments, makes it no less of a religion, in the eyes of the Ethical Skeptic.
The Metaphysical Naturalist’s Decabunk of Nihilsm
Ten Key Unethical Assertions of the Nihilist
1. I will slip the assertion by, that I posses absolute knowledge of the boundary as to what constitutes the natural and preternatural.
2. I will slip the presumption by, that the set of unknowns are small and constrained and therefore constitute no impact on my authority (Penultimate Set fallacy).
3. I will slip the claim by, that my inerrant boundary definitions of natural and preternatural have all been vetted by rigorous empirical testing.
4. I will slip the presumption by, that I do not adhere to a religion because I do not venerate a personified deity.
5. I will slip the assertion by, that if you do not agree with me, then you are religious.
6. I will slip the claim by, that science has only measured evidence in support of those tenets of Metaphysical Naturalism to which I am claiming to adhere.
7. I will slip the implication by, that belief in my version of Metaphysical Naturalist is a mandatory prerequisite for a variety of social goals.
8. I will slip the claim by, that science has found an empty set of evidence in support of those things I declare as preternatural or which could serve to falsify my belief.
9. I will slip the false dichotomy by, that there exist only two possible philosophical camps: Metaphysical Naturalism, and irrational God-believing Christianity.
10. I will slip the claim by, that all those in my camp agree with and hold evidence to support my claims to the supremacy of my Natural Philosophy.