Ethical Skepticism – Part I – The Octavus Thesauri and What it Means to Be an Ethical Skeptic

Wikipedia: In philosophy, skepticism refers to a mode of inquiry that emphasizes critical scrutiny, caution, and intellectual rigor; a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing; and finally is a set of claims about the limitations of human knowledge and the proper response to such limitations.

Skepticism is not a method of obtaining knowledge. Systematic doubt will not produce novel understanding, only serve to affirm what one already knows. These principles of ethical skepticism serve to highlight two common misconceptions which a poorly instructed amateur brings to the skepticism table. Mistakes which are exploited by social control forces, in order to push favored religions and social agendas in the name of science. Skepticism is a suspension of disposition on the part of an at risk or targeted observer, against being unduly swayed by agency. Skepticism does not dictate answers, nor is it a ‘world view’, as fake skeptics are prone to claim. Skepticism is the prerequisite discipline of mind on the part of one before conducting science. But it is that science which ‘obtains knowledge’, and not the skepticism itself. Beware of those who do not grasp this, especially if they are in the celebrity or journalistic limelight.

Aside from these two glaring fatal flaws, Wikipedia outlines some of what constitutes skepticism in the above definition.1 Ironically the last element in the definition belies the first two. But this oxymoron slipped by the definition writer at Wikipedia. There exists a problem of philosophy however, in that a sufficiently detrimental portion of those who identify themselves as ‘skeptics’ teach and practice a twisted version of skepticism based upon these errant principles. The Wikipedia author has purposely conflated science and skepticism, so that anyone who calls themself a skeptic, can therefore make claims in the name of science – simply through practicing a personal declaration of ‘skepticism’. This is bad philosophy. This has produced bad social results. This has produced bad science.

In order to clarify the difference between false and valid skepticism, I have introduced a more rigorous professional definition of the mindset; one more clearly and effectively focused on application of the discipline underlying the scientific method; and not one which pretends to take its place. One which I call Ethical Skepticism:

Ethical Skepticism

/epoché vanguards gnosis/ : Inquiry prompted by genuine curiosity under a suspended disposition of judgment, through dispassionate evidence gathering and objective unbiased reasoning in the process of executing the scientific method. A willingness to consider opposing explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, and a sincere pursuit of the goals of clarity, value, discipline and the assessment of risk, in the process of our knowledge development.

Two key questions of Ethical Skepticism:

1.  If I was wrong, would I even know it?

2.  If I was wrong, would I be contributing to harm?

What is NOT included:

  • any form of ‘denial of knowledge’
  • using existing personal knowledge to ‘critically scrutinize’ and filter out disliked data
  • obtaining knowledge by means of skepticism itself
  • using systematic doubt to achieve anything novel
  • ‘testing’ as a pretense of science, before gathering any intelligence or knowing what to test in the first place
  • pretense of knowing what question to ask, without any research and period of unbiased intelligence development
  • not a ‘mode of inquiry’ – it is inquiry itself
  • no decisions or dispositions, based upon skepticism itself
  • no targeting of subject or persons as being ‘pseudoscience’
  • claims of limitations of human knowledge are no more ‘claims’ than is 2+2=4
  • any uninformed or armchair version of ‘critical thinking’.

Ethical Skepticism is a blend of Empirical and Philosophical Skepticism, the tenets of both of which are vetted as to their efficacy in delivering value, clarity, probability and risk awareness 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 (See Ethical Skepticism PART 2). 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. One should not infer from the term ‘Ethical Skepticism’ a personal boast of morality, as those who are ignorant of graduate level philosophy are prone to accuse; rather comprehend it as an intellectual and practical allegiance to an actual long held standard of science. It derives its moniker and philosophical base from Ethical Intuitionism. 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, clarity and mitigation of risk/failure manifest as the signature handiwork of those who practice such ethics.

Ethical Skepticism is an invaluable tool for conditioning of mind and data sets, practiced by those in our history who have born true brilliance in their successes inside of science, social issues, technology, government and discovery.  An Ethical Skeptic first recognizes the shortcomings of those who hold power and those of his own assumptions.  The Ethical Skeptic then sets about a methodology which neutralizes these shortcomings and approaches solving the riddles wrapped around our resulting ignorance as a culture and body scientific.  The Ethical Skeptic is not as concerned about doubting things and always being right as he is about defending a mental self discipline of epoché; followed by the establishment of clarity and value in his research. He is insatiably curious, yet obsessive in defending the integrity of the knowledge development process.  He says “Look here, at what is predictably consistent.  It may be significant.  Let’s mature it enough to test, along with its counter claims, for falsification.”  He tolerates the potential falsification of his own pursuit, despite the irony of having pursued it passionately.

As an Ethical Skeptic, you are the one tasked with maintaining a discriminating mind with regard to process. No, you are not claiming to represent science or its conclusions. But one can as a skeptic indeed take a stand to defend the method of science when one observes it being abrogated. This is what the term ‘ethics’ means, an allegiance to a standard of practice – and not an allegiance to a particular set of outcomes, or categories of thought one considers invalid.

Protecting the integrity of the methods of science is not the same thing as tendering conclusions in lieu of science.

All this is embodied inside The First Duty of Ethical Skepticism.

The First Duty of Ethical Skepticism

The First Duty of Ethical Skepticism is to oppose agency. In the same way that science is a method, even so ignorance is also a method. But the scope of cultivated ignorance extends further than that of science itself, in that it is also a method of conditioning and contagion. It propagates through exploiting all manner of cunning and deceit. As an ethical skeptic, your first duty of philosophical acumen is not to execute the scientific method per se, which is straightforward in comparison. You are not here to promulgate conclusions, as that is the habit of your foe. Your ethical acumen is necessary rather, in spotting the clever masquerade of science and knowledge. Ethical Skepticism’s first duty therefore resides not solely in the examination of ‘extraordinary claims’, but also in examining those claims which serve to harm through the clever masquerade, hidden in plain sight, as if constituting ordinary ‘settled science’.

heros-versus-heroic-choicesSkepticism does not evaluate claims, as only science can do that. Skepticism does not pretend to speak for science nor act in lieu of science. Skepticism is a mental discipline which prepares its participant to do science. The pretend SSkeptic in contrast has memorized the one-liners which explain why the scientific method is unnecessary. That simply by means of the miracle of rational thought, which only they and their fellows possess, they can intercede on behalf of science.  The pretend SSkeptic proselytizes children and promotes themselves through celebrity and intimidation, in a vain attempt to squelch unwelcome subjects, observations or thought.  The pretend SSkeptic uses doubt like a weapon, via its selective and prejudiced application employed to promote an unacknowledged set of beliefs. The pretend SSkeptic highlights visibly and often that he is a skeptic and enforces plausible conformance claims without evidence, based on a list of disfavored subjects. He employs predictive testing supporting favored explanations, at best; and stopping there, then demands proof be the first step provided by outsiders, without the aid of science.  The pretend SSkeptic is an opportunist who leverages scientists’ lack of knowledge of sister disciplines to change the message of what scientists think, then boasts in visible media that his contentions represent the consensus opinion of scientists.

The Critical Role of Scientific Resilience Through Ethical Skepticism

Why do we celebrate don quixoteWithin each of us resides the Quixotic heart, the romanticist longing to be free from the prison which progressively adapts its walls to our observing of the reality in which we reside. A Schrödinger’s Cat entrapment. Bars which afford us emancipation, only to reveal that our escape has served simply to introduce us to another prison cell of observation and paradox. It is the keen intellect and ethical nature of the true skeptic, the true scientist, which prompts him to tilt his lance toward such phantoms. He does not mock; rather, he laughs. He recognizes that conformity is simply a resignation, a giving up; and is nothing akin to the purity of Taoist surrender. In defiant errand of mercy, he succumbs to an irresistible dissatisfaction; a labor of understanding that pattern solving and conformance serve to produce nothing but the walls and bars of the prison itself. This is our appel aux armes, the call to arms of the ethical skeptic.

A true scientist can discern the prison walls. It is in his nature to rebel. The technician and the diagnostician observe only arms waving in the wind.

This rebellion of course is not tantamount to Michael Shermer’s ‘whimsy;’ an exercise foisted to elicit the compliant and false version of skepticism. Whimsy is simply a tennis ball employed inside a game of self entertainment. A flailing of arms in the wind, deriving comfort at the striking of strawman and scarecrow constructs. Whismy is the shotgun skeet of the pseudo-intellectual and pattern recognition intoxicated. Endlessly reminding themselves of how smart they are through a repetition of offering up ridiculous notions and successfully shooting them down via the ceremonial and marital art of denial. Mocking is the surety that knowledge is something to be possessed, when the whole of the universe teaches us the abject lesson that such is not true (see Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality). The ethical skeptic must first spot this game in himself. It is the first dragon he must slay; and whether of stone or flesh it makes no matter. In such day, he becomes an ethical skeptic.

Thomas Kuhn accordingly laments in his work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions :

“…my most fundamental objective is to urge a change in the perception and evaluation of familiar data…” ³

Are Kuhn’s data windmills or dragons? In one frame of reference we mock, inside the other we effect resilience. This is what the mind yearning to be free, recognizes in Hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha. The second lesson of ethical skepticism is to understand this. Revolution does not, nor even most often, reside in the upturning of groundbreaking new measures or discoveries. It resides instead within our collective ability to recognize the recursive delusional entrapments of our scientific circles. Our love for Don Quixote resides not in celebration of the tilting at windmills, rather the comedic changement de cap, which allows him to exercise his tragic quest inside a realm of agreed containment.† We weep at the containment of the resilient will. We celebrate ethical skepticism.

The Legacy of Scientific Rebellion: Resilience

Authentic versus Silencing AnswersToday we are undergoing a revolution in the science surrounding intestinal health, auto-immunity and this amazing and diverse new organ we have discovered called the microbiome. This discovery was made despite the efforts of, and not by, Science Based Medicine. Instead it was precipitated by the Don Quixote’s of health – the consumers – the patients. Those who’s children are injured, those who suffer and those who are ethically skeptical of being forced to endure endless, expensive, side-effected and useless symptom treatments, passed off as ‘medicine.’ Science Based Medicine has sought to do nothing but criticize the ethical actions of these victims and seek to enact legislative prohibition of their rights. This is the true delusion – the mandatory thinking that they own, represent and are, science.

Scientific Resilience

/philosophy : nature of science : ethics/ : ability of a society to perceive and deliberate a course of discovery and development which targets the alleviation of suffering; one which rehabilitates its scientific methodology and knowledge gracefully and robustly to misfortune, mistake or change.

Resilience is defined as the ability of an entity to both recover from and adjust its future course gracefully and robustly in relation to error and change.  The Khun-loss of science is demonstrated only in the very nature and level of its ability to effect resilience.‡ Ethical Skepticism recognizes that the whole of life is one tumult, a crescendo of misfortune and change. Our will to effect entropic benefit inside this chaos not only serves to prove that we exist as consciousness, but moreover are a precursor and independent actor inside the interplay of tragedy and comedy. Our prison is a tragedy, and we transcend through the freedom of comedy, extant before such tragedy ever dawned on our mind. In the same way, science must be directed by the collective will of our society and not by those who declare themselves and their cronies to indeed be science. The same principle applies to skepticism. Resilience will come by handing the ethical direction of science back into the hands of those it is meant to serve. This elicited in no better fashion than by delineation of the difference between mocking and comedy:

Comedy is the protest of consciousness to the tragedy of paradox. Mocking is the abject refusal to see it.

Today we observe that it is mocking, which is the chief tool of those who seek to squelch and control the direction of science for their own selfish ends. The control freaks among us, refuse to see the true nature and need of scientific rebellion and resilience. They are the fakers, the mockers, the ‘anti-science’ among us all. They can only see windmills to their last dying and ineffectual breath. It is incumbent upon us to promote genuine skeptical thought and decry pseudo-skepticism, imperious institutional doctrines and the cultivation of ignorance.

The Ethical Skeptic (Octavus Thesauri)

  1. images45

    First and foremost finds fulfillment through disciplined pursuit of an insatiable curiosity; scrutinizing and maintaining caution around his own assumptions, regardless of where they are obtained; discriminating with discipline, ontological and religious cosmologies from actual science.

  2. Holds his skeptic peers accountable for abusive behavior, dishonesty, conflative or extrapolative pretense with actual science, epistemological broaches and appeals to false authorities.
  3. Challenges pat answers, one-liners, old truisms, social pressure mandates and institutional doctrines which surreptitiously evade scrutiny under the scientific method.
  4. Does not enforce one answer, nor consider/accuse under the basis of a ‘belief;’ rather considers new data without pre-filtering, exploring several ‘constructs’ at once, some of which may be diametrically in opposition.
  5. Acknowledges with integrity a sufficient threshold of plurality attained on a singular construct, warranting hypothesis development under the scientific method. Keeps a keen eye on the next appropriate question and objects at the asking of the wrong or manipulative question under the scientific method.
  6. Is not arrogant nor disdainful, nor seeks personally aggrandizing victory over others.  Rather, is self-confident enough to allow the scientific method to proceed no matter whether or not the subject threatens his own club, status, philosophies, authorship, ego, or even rational tolerance.
  7. Does not strive to disprove, but rather allows constructs to falsify themselves through accrued verity; eschewing promotion of a favored idea solely because it is promoted by peer pressure or is the conforming, predicate confirming or simplest explanation.
  8. Does not seek immediate forced proof before consideration of an idea, nor promote any enforced truth; but rather pursues

Value – as measured by achieving beneficial outcomes in their research,

Clarity – as measured by the ability to obtain common ground or understanding with opponents when possible, and

Integrity of The Epignosis – defends the integrity of the Knowledge Development Process, resists the promotion of religion as absolute truth and denies the cultivation of ignorance.

The Knowledge Development Process (The Epignosis)

The Epignosis - Copy 801

¹  Nozick, Robert; Philosophical Explanations, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1981, ISBN 0-674-66448-5; pp. 179-187.

²  Rosen, Stanley, Editor; The Philosopher’s Handbook: A User’s Guide to Western Philosophy, Random House, Inc., New York, NY, 2000; ISBN 978-0-375-72011-6; pp. 165-169.

³  Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press (1996, 3rd edition, ).

†  Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra; El ingenioso hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha; Public domain.

‡  Bird, Alexander, “Thomas Kuhn”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <;.

What is Pseudoscience?

What is Pseudoscience?  And why we live in a banana republic age of scientific consensus, ruled by SSkeptics.

In the September 2011 Scientific American Skeptic editorial, Michael Shermer tendered, in my opinion, an untenable definition of Pseudoscience.  A definition which is crafted to lend legitimacy to the unethical act of classifying subjects a priori into forbidden domains; involving power which appropriates and corrupts the use of peer review and research, making them no longer tools on the part of true experts in a field of study, rather the pretentious actions of controlling social figures and campaigns.  A definition which seeks instead to promote science as a form of democratic popularity contest adjudicated by all those appointed the right to vote by the very power wielding SSkeptics themselves. A contest of politics wherein it is the number of people in a social club who have an opinion, and not the data, research and work of the true investigators (see Discovery Science), which determines the tenets of what is considered an acceptable conclusion of science.

All this passed off under the pretense of socially responsible jargon, that somehow this broad non-expert opinion survey constitutes “egalitarian rather than elitist” principles and is “bottom up rather than top down.”  In other words “We cannot rely upon people conducting observations and doing research to guide us, we need the vote of our social order, trained through filtered channel propaganda.”

“Let science consumers in the marketplace of ideas determine (vote) what constitutes good science, starting with the scientists themselves and filtering through the editors, educators, and readers.  As for potential consumers of pseudoscience (that means everyone), that’s what skeptics are for…” (Michael Shermer, “What is Pseudoscience?”, Scientific American; Vol 305, No. 3; p. 92)

Michael Shermer is wrong here in my opinion.  He has not only crafted an non-viable definition of the term pseudoscience, but has assumed a position of power on the part of he and his Cabal, which they do not merit.  What is actually practiced is nothing akin to an egalitarian consensus, rather is a Social Technology (a forthcoming blog on why it does not take a conspiracy theory in order for good persons to produce evil outcomes) crafted by those who seek power.  SSkeptics develop an iniquitous and incompetent framing of the processes which lead to the presumption of what is and is not pseudoscience.   Below I will outline why Pseudoscience, in Ethical Skepticism is an action and a pretense on the part of those claiming to represent science, and not a disposition of a topic by controlling interests.  There are five principal fatal problems inherent in defining pseudoscience as a disposition of a topic, tendered by today’s version of democratic science.

Why Pseudoscience is an ACTION and a PRETENSE, and cannot ethically be a research subject, topic, belief or faith

Ethical Problem 1:   The Marketplace is informed of the vote results by SSkeptics

If you have ever been to a party, where a scientist will quietly speak his mind on one of the Forbidden 121 topics but mentions that he would never be able to speak in public about such things, nor heaven forbid, actually conduct observations inside the subject, much less do any science – then you know first hand the all-too-common witch hunt mentality which exists inside science today.   This witch hunt is not a conspiracy theory, rather a real and damaging zeitgeist crafted by, and painted by the SSkeptic Cabal.  The problem with Michael Shermer’s version of the Marketplace of Science , is that the results of the vote, or if you will what is the new fashion rage for this spring, or the results of this year’s Academy Awards of Authorized Science, are informed and presented to the democratic body, by the very SSkeptics themselves.  This is a stark conflict of interest. People with a singular religious view, informing people as to what to believe, is not science.  “As for potential consumers of pseudoscience (everyone), that’s what skeptics are for…”  In other words, we live in a banana republic, where one party informs the voters of the tally of the vote.

And is this party honest? No. In the coming millennium this will not even be in question.  As our minds continue to expand and be informed, today’s SSkeptic movement will be replaced by true scientific method and ethics (see The Tower of Wrong).

Ethical Problem 2:  The Science ‘Marketplace’ includes a majority of non-expert voters, who are an easy sell for SSkeptics, and who are inappropriately called the ‘scientists themselves’

Ahh, I see.  So science is a popularity contest inside a club of non-experts, non-researchers, non-interested persons who simply hold a status and title (“the scientists themselves”).  A democracy of popular vote among a constituency of persons who win the right to vote by simply being in the club; and not by having actually conducted real research into the idea in question.  Since I have a title, I am deemed able to make pronouncements on any subject I desire, and be counted in the vote.  SSkeptics ignore the fact that, in regard to those subjects deemed “pseudosciences” – very few of scientists are actually experts in the subject in question at all.

     Corollary 2a.  There are far fewer true experts than there are opinionated non-expert voters

There at least 200 sciences comprised by Natural, Social, Medical, Engineering, and Mathematical discipline groupings.  This is a very successful focus and career advancement structure. But the weakness therein is that any participant in the body of science intrinsically only holds expertise on .5% to 4% of the given knowledge base.  I have spent 30 years pursuing my career subject, replete with 8 years of undergrad and graduate work.  I am considered one of the top 3 persons in my field.  This as a result of working 6 days a week and 12 to 16 hours a day on the cutting edge of my field.  I still do not have an adequate grasp of my field after all this time.  It is still not enough for me to begin to dictate what is right inside of sister disciplines.  At most I have a 4% grasp on industry as a whole.  I am a non-expert on much of my broad science grouping.  Understanding this is a key tenet of Ethical Skepticism.

When I observe scientists or SSkeptics pretending to be experts on a broad array of subjects, I KNOW it is a load of baloney.  They have not had enough time to gain this insight.  It is a pretense and a masquerade.

So, because a group of astronomers, physicists, psychologists, nuclear technologists and mathematicians do not like the idea of a North American Primate, then the subject is given the final fatal disposition of a ‘pseudoscience’ – despite none of the ‘scientists themselves’ (or voters, in this context) in question actually having done ANY research at all into the subject.  Couple this with the fact that those who actually DO research, are declared to be not-scientists, or are relegated to and less than SSkeptics’ subjectively convenient “dismissible margin,” and one has witnessed the establishment a social construct.  There is a problem, there is a flaw in the system which creates a social order and not a science, when the following state exists in the voting input.  This state exists for much of what is deemed “Pseudoscience” by the Social Skeptics:

Sum of Expert Input   <    Dismissible Margin

    Corollary 2b.  PhD level or other technicians are often counted in the vote as ‘scientists’

A definitive weakness in the ‘count everyone’s vote’ egalitarian method of science is that we allow the definition of the term ‘scientist’ to include degreed field and research technicians, when indeed these individuals are simply there to follow the guidance, follow the rules, and make sure that everything works.  A technician, a PhD level engineer, graduate IT developer, or degreed lab tech, may be called a scientist in slang, but are not really considered expert researchers.  They may even hold several advanced degrees.  Technicians in most disciplines include psychologists, sociologists, information technologists, human factors engineers, electrical chemical or mechanical engineers, project and program managers, finance managers, lab techs, research aides, statistical analysts, methods analysts, or non-tenured research associates.  While I have immense respect for these areas of research and development, they should not typically comprise a part of the base which qualifies as ‘the scientists themselves’ – but you will find people with really 8 years in program management, or 7 years in PhD engineering project roles being called ‘scientists’ – when in fact they are not

    • Many so called ‘scientists’ really only occupy technician or teaching roles
    • Technicians beef up the non-expert vote count
    • Technicians distinguish themselves by being good at following the instructions
    • You will find more SSkeptics in the Information Technology, Psychology and Engineering realms than you will find in true Science

In reality, technicians make their merit, distinguish themselves in their careers by how well they follow the rules.  If you think outside the box, you are not going to do well in an engineering curriculum typically.  Laplacian Transformations, Golden Section Algorithms, Reactor Core Design theory development academic proficiencies are all typically programs which demand rigorous rule following, and are not typically designed to encourage the participant to develop new ‘out of context ideas”  Having hired and worked with over 400 engineers over the years in profit-based and demanding professional businesses, as well as cutting edge research environs, I have observed this to be very common.  Technicians follow the rules.  They will spout the dogma.  As they move into management they rarely promote maverick thinking, and are rather irritated by it.  They will cast their vote the way they are told to vote.  That is how they made the cut to begin with.

Ethical Problem 3:   The Club voting membership is educated, regulated and qualified solely by those who have an investment in the outcome of the vote

The “editors, educators…and skeptics” role is to filter data and acceptance of voters, so that the outcome they desire is ensured in the popular vote.  We have stacked the jury and ensured that we have an OJ Simpson verdict on subjects in which we have conducted NO research whatsoever – simply because we do not like the subject.  We have dismissed an idea by popular prejudice, method, education and media propaganda, and not by evidential merit.

I have several excellent scientists working for me.  They all maintain pre-concluded presumptions as to the validity and veracity of alternative medicine, human neolithic history, UFO’s and various forms of paranormal data collection.  They have been trained to hold these beliefs.  They are NOT experts on the subjects, they cannot cite falsification Test 1 on any topic.  But SSkeptics would have us all believe that they are fully accepted and qualified members of the voting “scientists themselves.”

Ethical Problem 4:   Status declarations imply successful falsifications by science which indeed have never actually been tested for, nor achieved

SSkeptics, often feel that the end game of their duty is to simply provide a Plausible Deniability scenario, when confronted with a challenging piece of evidence or data.  This is fake skepticism (see Pseudo-Skeptics: Marcello Truzzi, Founding Co-chairman of CSICOP).  While the simplest explanation is certainly an appropriate lead construct in a pluralistic argument, it by no means demarcates the end state of our duty, and it by no means indicates that falsification of all other compelling constructs has been achieved.

    Corollary 4a.  Seeking anecdotal evidence supporting Plausible Deniability scenarios is NOT science, it is Promotification

I watched a famed SSkeptic stand in as the ‘skeptic’ in a paranormal program the other night.  Good job on that for the courageous skeptic, but I guess it is their job to deflect this stuff from the consideration of disdainful academics.  The SSkeptic, as a representative of rational SSkepticism, only set up testing protocols to provide evidence of support for a Plausible Deniability scenario he had in mind.   This is NOT falsification, does not add value and does not offer clarity in the process.  It is not science. Simply establishing that a Plausible Deniability scenario is possible, does not add value to the argument.  We need falsification, not propaganda fuel.  The SSkeptic will simply find what he is looking for and take that back to reassure his arrogant 15 year olds that all is well.  There are no ghosts.

    Corollary 4b.  Declaring ‘falsifiability’ is not the same thing as being falsified, and only scientific study can prove falsification

But at times SSkeptics break from the Plausible Deniability approach and range back into Falsification Testing.  Well, not actually testing.  That would require that we actually DO science.  SSkeptic semantics shift back to falsification as a demarcating precept.  But they typically only choose to focus on “falsifiability” and not the actual status of being “falsified.”  A pseudoscience need only possess falsifiability and plausible deniability in order to be condemned by the SSkeptic Cabal on behalf of science.  Indeed however, it is the flippant declaration of falsifiability, the swagger of plausible alternatives, and not the actual act of falsification itself which is the tool used by SSkeptics to declare a subject a pseudoscience.  Only science can falsify, but science is forbidden access to falsify these topics (see What Constitutes a Religion?).

SSkeptics correctly cite “falsifiability” to be the ultimate criterion of demarcation of a science and non-science.  Well, all of these subjects are falsifiable, so why do we forbid their testing by scientists?  SSkeptics would dictate that falsification tests need not be conducted, since the ‘scientists themselves’ have already made a conclusion.  Because I CAN falsify this, I do not need to.  Scientists keep out of this and let the SSkeptics handle it.

This is pseudoscience.

Ethical Problem 5:   Once a SUBJECT is deemed (by popular non-expert vote) as a “Pseudoscience,” it can never again be seriously considered despite the existence or introduction of Ockham’s Razor plurality evidence

Deniers!, Pseudoscientist! Pseudoscience! Simplest Explanation!, Woo!, Bunk!, Nonsense!, Witchcraft!, Magic!  These are a part of the inventory of Weapon Words which are core to the filtering process which SSkeptics employ.  These bear the hallmark employments of thought control and social order establishment.  They are the means of control inside a large body of pretend experts on all subjects.  They are the bricks of the Kristallnacht of Science.  Please refer to the list of the 121 Forbidden Subjects.

The Principle of filtering data “through editors, educators…and skeptics” is an irresponsible configuration of activities which are not science methods, but rather a method of developing propaganda, exclusion and definition of acceptable thought.  Agenda sponsors, and those who have control of the media channels imbue their prejudices into the ideas which are then fed through the sole channels available (schools, press, media, publishing, policy, governance, enforcement) to the proletariat membership.  This is socialistic in its construction, and is nothing akin to science.  Science is not a popular vote, it is not appropriately based on agenda campaigns, nor is it a social order of entitlement, as SSkeptics would have it.

The final declaration of an IDEA as pseudoscience, rather than a set of actions, means that we can never recover from a mistake in the popular vote, contrived by those with less-than-honorable intent.  We become the victims of the surreptitious among us. It does not matter that much of The Periodic Table of Irrational Nonsense promoting rationality through ridicule (from © 2010 by Crispian Jago) depicted at the right, is correct.  The issue is the incorrect methodology employed to arrive at its conclusions, the social method employed to enforce those dispositions and the great probability that it is incorrect on some of this ridicule material. This type of gilt-edged fakery constitutes a net loss to mankind.

NONE of this is Science. It is pseudo-science in my opinion for two reasons:

a. It boasts specific claims about these subjects sans any research, evidence, or critical epistemology, and

b. It pretends to have employed science in the determination of its conclusions, and that science agrees with its conclusions.

In fact, Pseudoscience can NEVER be a subject, by the tenets of logic alone. Rather it is characterized by actions just like a. and b. above. A subject cannot be declared false by a set of outsiders.  Those who condemn a subject to be a pseudoscience, are guilty of unethical, non-scientific practices – and being eventually proved correct does not exonerate the practitioner of such deception.  It is merely a technicality.

Indeed, what follows is therefore for the Ethical Skeptic, the only viable definition of pseudoscience:

Ethical Skepticism Definition of Pseudoscience: Pseudoscience is an action, not a subject

Pseudoscience – Disposition of ideas as constituting science or non-science based on their subject matter alone, in lieu of employment of scientific method. A methodology or conclusion which over-relies upon predictive study, confirmation or dismissive skepticism. A claim or conclusion which is presented as current best science or as being derived from the scientific method, when in fact such contentions are false.

The employment of Social Technology control tactics, seeking to dictate singular thought, is Pseudoscience.  This is what Michael is proposing in his editorial.

A Scientist is someone actively engaged in research in a given subject, and NOT someone holding a degree or engaged in research in another subject.  These contributors add no more value or clarity than outside non-expert opinions; their inclusion can only be used for control.  And remember, the goals of the Ethical Skeptic, are value and clarity; not the control of ideas.

Denial of Discovery Science

SSkeptics’ failure to differentiate between Discovery Science, Developmental Science and Engineering is purposeful and methodical.  But it by no means represents Science.  The focus on Experimental Methodology only as representative of the entirety of the scientific method, simultaneously constrains all science to the control of a few in a lab, and excludes critical steps of early Development Science diligence which might serve to introduce unwanted evidence and hypotheses.

discovery science vs developDiscovery Science as an activity set is a substantially different venture than is the controlled directed methodical discipline of Developmental Science.  Of course both domains involve disciplined measures, paths and processes; this is not in argument.  More importantly however, is a seldom heralded principle on the part of SSkeptics that, Discovery Science approaches do not apply in the same way as when one is simply ‘developing’ enhancing tests and falsifications inside the domain set of a fully developed theory, constrained hypothesis domain, or study discipline.  Discovering a new galaxy cluster for example, while exciting and serendipitous, is not what I am including under the definition of Discovery Science.  Improving our knowledge of the celestial makeup of the heavens is not Discovery Science, but rather Developmental Science.  Developmental Science relies on a shade different set of protocols and steps under the Scientific Method than does Discovery Science.  They both employ the analytical feedback and peer review process, but the logical address of issues in an around default/simplest explanations, alternative explanations, the role of sponsors versus researchers and peers, null hypothesis development, falsification hierarchies, and threshold of escalation are different.  String Theory investigation is not pursued in the same way as is sky-mapping. Both are science.

To the SSkeptic, only Developmental Science and Experimental Methodologies Exist

Now of course, in simple form this relationship is depicted in the chart to the right, one which I use in the labs I work with to help focus the technicians and scientists in a particular direction of effectiveness.  I do not let the Developmentally skilled researchers have power over the Discovery researchers, as this is a common mistake in managing labs.  In fact, in one lab I divided the entire organization into a development lab separate from a discovery lab, with separate professional directors.  These two did not always get along either.  But this was not a derivative of that relationship, rather an outcome of sound research practice.   I ask them in addition to set aside Cultivation of Personal Power and Pet Prejudices.  We do not filter data and ideas.  We do not attack Sponsors of an idea.  This removes a whole host of filtering and a priori errors which SSkeptics introduce into a Discovery Science process. Also, set aside for a moment the domain of Engineering, as Engineering relies on the analytical control and input sensitivity measures which are established in Advanced Development Science.  In order for Engineering processes to be undertaken, there are certain aspects of Developmental Science which must be completed, otherwise one cannot apply the discovery for benefit or creation of a business.  A benefit or business is ALWAYS derived from Engineering.  Many notorious industry mistakes have been made by attempting to begin a benefit or business straight from the Science only (Carbon Sequestration Seeding comes to mind).

When a SSkeptic’s goal is cultivation of ignorance and personal power, they will pretend that the Scientific Method comprises only Steps 8 through 15 and that only the ‘Lab Method’ or the broader Experimental Methodology can be utilized to produce observational data or vet escalation therein.  In an organization where groundbreaking Science results are paramount, the seasoned Scientist knows this approach to be fallacious.

The work of Sponsors is critical.  This does not mean that the Sponsors have to or necessarily ‘believe’ the subject at hand.

When Results are the Goal and not Cultivation of Personal Power, THIS is the Scientific Method:













13.  PEER REVIEW (Community Vetting)



– – –

Discovery Science suffers from outsider beliefs, lack of sponsorship, lack of impetus, unclear falsifiability mandates, lack of mission and the false contention that no ad hoc ideas may be pursued

Adding data to a well understood falsification hierarchy, within mature knowledge and Peer Review frameworks, is an wholly different discipline than creating a market of data which will begin to describe a new explanatory framework altogether; one of which few have been aware or clearly understood.  Man discovering objects under the ocean for the first time ever, is an wholly different discipline than using technology to locate submarines.  Developmental Science is assumption based, simplest explanation, sponsorship, impetus, falsifiability and mission driven. NO ad hoc.  Discovery Science suffers from beliefs, lack of sponsorship, lack of impetus, unclear falsifiability and lack of mission.  Restriction of ad hoc pursuits is detrimental to Discovery Science and SSkeptics know this.  Failure to highlight this is a popular method utilized by Deskeption Cabal members. SSkeptics, commonly employ tricks enabled by the awareness that the protocols utilized in Discovery Science are nurturing in ideology and do not employ the triage effect of those used in Developmental Science.  They rely upon the layman’s, and many scientists’ lack of grasp of this distinguishing principle.  SSkeptics will critique Discovery Data Collection and Discovery Investigation/Sponsor methodologies and refuse them validity, by applying Developmental Science protocol – which in effect filters data early enough in the process to kill an idea; failing to acknowledge the challenge incumbent on the Discovery Researcher.  This portrays an aura of Science on the part of the SSkeptic, but is not Science at all.

SSkeptics will critique Discovery Data Collection and Discovery Investigation/Sponsor methodologies and refuse them validity, by applying Developmental Science protocol – which in effect filters data early enough in the process to kill an idea.  This portrays an aura of Science, but is not Science at all.

Deskeption: Deny Discovery Science – Symptoms to Watch For:

Discover Science Denial is enacted via some of the following Pseudoscientific Declarations:

1. You are not pursuing science, but only your pet idea – This is false. A researcher can sponsor and research a single avenue of Discovery Science under the Scientific Method.  This effort will involve falsification of competing classic explanations of course, but that does not mean he must fully investigate every alternative explanation first before he can pursue his idea.  That is Developmental and not Discovery Science.

2. Bring me evidence once case at a time only – By dealing only in an anecdotal fashion, SSkeptics pull the trick of skipping data aggregation and confidence interval threshold tests which could substantiate a case for plurality (see Knowledge Filtering).

3.  You have not considered nor tested for alternative explanations – This is a false enforcement.  Study of the diligent alternative, the discovery alternative and many times, the one which can be eliminated through falsification most easily, takes precedence over assigning the simplest explanation, every time. Contending that the researcher should look for evidence supporting alternative explanations first or only, is not even Developmental Science, but rather a false form of induction called Promotification. This is a very common pseudoscience game played by SSkeptics seeking to squelch ideas and data.

4.  No scientist seriously considers this a credible avenue of research – This is a false enforcement, as there are no scientists inside this subject (see What is Pseudoscience?).

5.  We have no compelling need to look into this/the subject is a waste of my time – In the presence of Ockham’s Razor level data, this is an a priori conclusion and is pseudoscience.

6.  Employment or Enforcement of a Null Hypothesis which cannot be tested for Falsification (see What Defines a Religion)This is false because the Null Hypothesis is an untestable domain which cannot be falsified.  It is not a construct.  This is the pseudo-scientific method (see Proof by Non-Falsifiability).

7.  You BELIEVE this – ‘belief’ is the battle-cry of the pseudo-skeptic.  A Discovery Researcher, as a true skeptic, does not have to be dispassionate about pursuit of his idea.  Indeed that passion drives him onward.  Given sufficient data, and sufficient impetus, his efforts to focus on one idea and chain of data are valid, even though it may not match the same protocols inside of Developmental Research.  It is his ability to tolerate his idea’s falsification which qualifies him as a true skeptic.  Faker SSkeptics will never admit falsification of their pet ideas; but rather, will chose to enforce them without circumspection or conscience.