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.
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.
Proof Gaming
/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.
epoché vanguards gnosis
¹ The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Karl Popper: Critical Rationalism”; http://www.iep.utm.edu/cr-ratio/#H2.
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:
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 
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 
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 
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.
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 
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.
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.
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.
