We will see within the media and its propagandists a raging fire of insults, misinformation, slandering, and obfuscation of scientific analysis on the part of vaccine safety. Lurking in the depths of the Internet are something known as social skeptics, but what are social skeptics?
Social Skepticism is a sponsored activist movement which functions as an integral part of the socially engineered mechanisms attempting to dominate human thought, health, welfare and education. This domination serving as means to an end, towards subjection of all mankind’s value to mandated totalitarian institutions; institutions that avert legal exposure by abusing skepticism to serve their goals. Ends formulated by a social elite; however, which stand threatened by innate elements of mankind’s being and background.
An activist driven enforcement therefore of a social epistemology crafted to obfuscate mankind’s understanding of such innate elements. Its members practice a form of vigilante bullying, employed in lieu of science to dismiss disliked subjects, persons and evidence before they can ever see the light of scientific day. Seeking to establish as irrefutable truth a core philosophy of material monism, dictating that only specific authorized life physical and energy domains exist. A comprehensive program of enforcement sought accordingly, through rather than the risk of ethical scientific methodology, instead a practice of preemptive methodical cynicism which enforces an embargo policy regarding, cultivates ignorance and institutionalizes intimidation surrounding any subject which could ostensibly serve as a pathway to falsify their power enabling illusory religion of Nihilism. (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
There are many fallacies and tactics most used by social skeptics, and they are as follows:
Existential Fallacy of Data
the implication or contention that there is an absence of observation or data supporting an idea, when in fact no observational study at all, or of any serious import has been conducted by science on the topic at hand (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Ignoring as Accident
exceptions or even massive sets of data and observational counter-evidence to an enforced generalization are ignored as anecdotes or accidents (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
the tendency to immediately accept propaganda published in the opponent’s favored group, and to reject observations, data or ideas which do not fit the opponent’s favored models (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Status Quo Bias
the tendency to like things to stay relatively the same, even in the face of necessity and new observations (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
expecting a member of a group to possess certain characteristics reasonably or unreasonably assigned to that group, without having actual information about that individual (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
attacks on piece of data or an easily disprovable topic of credulity used as an effort to bolster an opponent’s record of debunking success and club ranking. This reputation to then further allow for irrelevant and unmerited gravitas in addressing other arguments where data and observation do not support the goals of the opponent (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
presentation of an argument that may or may not be logically valid on its own, but distracts the discussion away from a failing argument, as well as failing nonetheless to address the context of the issue in question or address its logical validity (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Pro Innovation Bias
the tendency to have an excessive optimism towards technology or science’s ability to shed light into a subject or advance understanding, while often failing to identify its limitations and weaknesses, and habitually dismissing all other methods (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Argumentum Ad Populum
(appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
As Science as Law Fallacy
the implication or assumption that something is ‘innocent until proven guilty’ under the scientific method, when in fact this is an incorrect philosophy of hypothesis reduction (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
The presumption that one holds enough data to determine what is probable and improbable in a field of a set of data (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
The Truzzi Fallacy Appeal to Skepticism
Everything is due to an increase in categorization and diagnostics, not actual happenings or growth (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
The MiHoDeAL Claim Fallacy
MiHoDeAL – noun \ məh -hōˈ dē-ül \ : a claim, implication or boast to knowledge, that one holds the credential and has conducted sufficient research into a subject to scientifically disposition that its underpinning observational basis consists solely of Misidentifications, Hoaxes, Delusions, Anecdote and Lies.
Characterization of the Undistributed Middle
all pseudo scientists promote un-vetted data, the proponent of this argument promoted un-vetted data (in my view), therefore the promoter of this argument is a pseudo scientist (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
the pejorative categorization of an individual expressing a contention into a stereotypical ‘true believers’ box pertaining to such contention. The fallacy of presumption and insult which implies that the victim is neither intelligent enough, informed enough nor of sufficiently social or credible status to merit possession of an epistemologically derived conclusion; therefore they must only ‘believe' (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Belief vs. Belief-Domain Conflation
misinterpreting identification of a belief as being based on a method of pseudoscience, as tacit permission to declare the entire belief-domain associated with the specific belief, to also constitute pseudoscience (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Abusive Ad Hominem
usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent, including implying their lacking of critical thinking skills or rationality or membership in a pigeonhole of stupidity, which are irrelevant to the argument at hand, as a means to invalidate the arguments of the opponent. This includes an attack on a person when there is evidence to support it. The attack is still ad hominem if the attack had nothing to do with the preexisting discussion context (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Appeal to Scientist Fallacy
an argument that is misrepresented to be the premise held true on the part of the prevailing group of scientists; or concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to a more successful career in science (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Appeal to Skepticism Position
the argument assumption or implication that an opinion possesses authoritative veracity or a proponent possesses intellectual high ground simply through allegiance to a consensus skeptical position on a topic (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Appeal to Skepticism Status
– the declaration, assumption or implication that a consensus skeptical position on a topic is congruent with the consensus opinion of scientists on that topic (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Appeal to Skepticism Fallacy
the presumption or contention that taking a denial based or default dubious stance on a set of evidence or topic is somehow indicative of application of the scientific method on one’s part, or constitutes a position of superior intellect, or represents a superior critical or rational position on a topic at hand (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Argument from Fallacy
the false assumption that the simple act of catching an opponent in commission of a logical fallacy immediately invalidates all of their ideas, observations and data (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Argument from Ignorance
asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, or is false because it has not been shown to have any evidence (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Argument from Incredulity
the contention that because something is too difficult to imagine or possibly exist, then this is proof that it does not exist (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Argument from Self-Knowing
if P were true or false then I would know it as a skeptic; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true or false (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
the attempt to link controversial subject A with personally disliked subject B, in an effort to impute falsehood to subject B though the association of some idea or keyword common to both topics. Guilt through association and lumping all subjects into one subjective category. This typically will involve a context shift or definition expansion in a key word as part of the justification (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Ad Nauseam Fallacy
the intolerance of an argument or a set of data through implying that it has been hashed and re-hashed over and over so much by science or sponsors, that everyone is tired of the subject and if there were anything true to it, it would have come out and been published already (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Affirmation Characterization from a Negative Premise
believers in this subject are typically credulous, and credulous people do not command science; therefore all believers in this subject are pseudo scientists (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Appeal to Probability
the false contention of a skeptic that the most probable, simple, or likely outcome in a set of highly convoluted but unacknowledged assumptions is therefore the compulsory or prevailing conclusion of science (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Appeal to Tradition
(argumentum ad antiquitam) – a conclusion advertised as proven scientifically solely because it has long been held to be true (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
the attempt to create an illusion of widespread grassroots support for a policy, viewpoint, or product, where little such support in reality exists. Multiple online identities coordinate around celebrity siren calls, manufactured data, fake-hoax counter propaganda and shill pressure groups; all employed to mislead the public into believing that the position of the astroturfer is a socially acceptable, rational reality and/or a commonly held view (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
when a group fails to see their own mistakes or errors inside a hot issue, usually obscured by the common spread of propaganda, and therefore must view any critique of, error or data contradiction as being the fault of opposition or outside parties (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
an effect where someone’s evaluation of the logical strength of an argument is biased by the believability of the conclusion, or suitability under their acknowledged or unacknowledged set of beliefs (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Bunk Nauseam Fallacy
the argument that a point is invalid by implying or citing incorrectly that the topic has been de-bunked many, many times, and is now nothing but an irritating myth inside circles of stupidity (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Cannot be Reliably Tested Error
the malpractice of disqualifying a subject, study or researcher from science by citing that it has not been or cannot be tested or reliably repeated in testing. When in fact many conclusions of accepted science fall under such a reality. This often is achieved through blocking its access to the scientific method, ignoring the topic, conflating the scientific method with the experimental method, ignoring discovery science protocols, refusing to research/test the contention, or misrepresenting its appropriate next steps or empirical questions, and further then citing that therefore the subject has failed the necessary testing methods of science (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
just as the cheetah is the fastest land animal, the fastest philosophical animal is a ‘skeptic’ who flees from the scientific method by means of ‘critical thinking’ when faced with any evidence or science they see as potentially threatening to the paradigm they desire to enforce (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
pointing to a talking sheet of handpicked or commonly circulated individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring or denying a significant portion of related context cases or data that may contradict that position (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Choice Supportive Bias
the tendency to remember one’s choices and professional judgment as more educated or accurate than they actually were (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
when using humor or mocking of others as a facade of appearing objective or to conceal the underlying message one is passing as not being threatening, serious or malicious in nature, when such an implication is false. Typically employed as well as a defensive lever posture of allowing accusation of any criticism bearer as needing to ‘lighten up” since they have not used humor to belie their agenda (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
the practice of ensuring that a subject never possesses any valid scientific evidence through the fallacious step of declaring it to be a pseudoscience before investigation is ever undertaken by science. Since the subject is a pseudoscience, all research by laymen can never be accepted as evidence, and since there is no evidence, then the subject is false and science should not study it, and since science will not study it and people research it with lay attempts at science, then it is a pseudoscience (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Claim vs Claim-Subject Conflation
misinterpreting identification of a claim as being based on a method of pseudoscience, as tacit permission to declare the entire subject around the specific claim, to also constitute pseudoscience (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Click Bait (or Headline) Skepticism
a position backed by articles or studies in which the headline appears to support the position contended, however which in reality actually contend something completely or antithetically different. A skeptical understanding, which is developed though sound bytes and by never actually reading the abstract, method or content of, cited articles or studies (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
pointing to a talking sheet of handpicked or common touted individual cases or data that loosely seem to confirm a particular position, yet in fact are not sequitur with, nor in context with, nor logically related to the point of contention being touted (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
accusing a person of practicing pseudoscience and credulity simply because they are regarding an outlier idea. A credulist may be wrong, but as long as they are not pretending to represent Science or claim to be using the Scientific Method, they are not practicing pseudoscience; rather, are merely guilty of being receptive to an untested conclusion (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
the contention or implication that an opponent or group of opponents does not practice evidence based, rational or critical thinking simply because they disagree with the proponent or can be pigeon holed into a group disdained by the proponent or the proponent’s organization (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Curse of Knowledge Effect
when better-informed people find it extremely difficult to think about problems from the perspective of lesser-informed people; or perceive that their burden of knowledge cannot be fathomed by lesser-capable people, rendering them unable to practice critical or evidence based thinking (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Denial Activist's Bias
when bias is evident from the social fact that the majority of persons inside a denial based activists group, neither have studied nor had any first hand experience within the subject they are actively seeking to deny (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
denial obfuscation efforts by a SSkeptic being falsely passed off as informed dissent on their part. Conversely, spinning dissenters or those with opposing data as persons who are “Deniers" (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Denying the Antecedent
the contention that since a subject is a pseudoscience, then any of its constructs, theories, results, data and observations are invalid and anyone who considers them is a pseudo scientist (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
the staunch insistence that the obvious or apparent explanation, concerning specific targeted subjects, cannot possibly be the truth. There is always something hidden behind, a hoax, corruption, a misinterpretation, a lie; ie. the dietro (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
the manipulation of unconsciously incompetent persons or laypersons into believing that a source of authority expresses certain opinions, when in fact the persons can neither understand the principles underpinning the opinions, nor critically address the recitation of authority imposed upon them (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
the tendency to underestimate the influence or strength of feelings, in either oneself and over-estimate it in others (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Ergo Sum Veritas
the assumption, implication or inference that an organization bearing a form of title regarding skepticism immediately holds de facto unquestionable factual or ideological credibility over any other entity having conducted an equivalent level of research into a matter at hand. The assumption, implication or inference that an organization or individual bearing a form of title regarding skepticism, adheres to a higher level of professionalism, ethics or morality than does the general population (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
the tendency for experimenters to believe, certify, and publish data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment, and to disbelieve, discard, or downgrade the corresponding weightings for data that appear to conflict with those expectations (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Existential Popper Demarcation Error
citing something as a pseudoscience simply because one does not like the topic, or the topic has had pretend science performed in its name in the past (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
words of mass defamation. A fashion term inside SSkeptic discourse, being forced onto the public, and targeting a goal of defaming targeted individuals, observations and in the deceptive obviation of access to science by unwelcome topics. Words plied to place SSkeptic compliant peer pressure on budding scientists or persons of influence in grade school, high school and beyond (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
when an arguer presents objection after objection to an observation, data or construct, only to shift to another objection in an inventory of habitual objections as each successive objection is satisfied or made irrelevant. Typically employed when one has no desire to allow discourse on the subject at hand, and through ignoring each successive failure of objection they raise (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
the tendency to defend and bolster the status quo. Existing social, economic, and political arrangements tend to be preferred, and alternatives disparaged sometimes even at the expense of individual, intellectual and collective self-interest (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
the illegitimate assignment or characterization of a proponent of a set of ideas, into a disfavored, extreme or fanatical group; in an effort to discredit the set of ideas without undertaking or possessing the research, evidence or qualifications necessary to justify such assignment (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. Any man can be made to appear irrational and vile, if his opponents only are allowed to speak on his behalf (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Straw Man Conformance Fallacy
an argument formulated according to the idea that since a person or group believes or considers subject A to be a potentiality, then an opponent insists that they therefore have endorsed extreme misrepresentations of subject A as well. Usually tendered at the end of a discussion or in a format where no retort is allowed (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Straw Man Profiling
profiling of an individual based on an extreme or misrepresented version of their position. Any man can be made to appear irrational and vile, if his opponents only are allowed to speak on his behalf (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Straw Man Proof
when one makes up or spins an overly negative representation of another person’s position or a set of ideas/observations, and contends that this condemnation, and an implied sleight-of-hand bifurcation, therefore proves their own position or stands as scientific proof of their own idea (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
What's Done is Done Bias
the artificial refusal to accept new data because an argument has ‘already been settled' (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
the false claim by SSkeptics that they represent the position of science or critical thinking on a topic. A pretense made by a SSkeptic through application of intimidation, intimations as to personal brilliance and simple logical if-thens based on highly convoluted presumptive and furtive underpinnings, employed in lieu of actual scientific method, to preclude legitimate research or discourse around all Skeptic Cabal disfavored subjects (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
the rejection of an entire set of data by the pointing out of one questionable or disliked element inside the data (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Transactional Popper Demarcation Error
incorrectly citing a topic as being a pseudo science, when in fact its sponsors are seeking falsification based protocols to counter the antithetical premise to their case, or its sponsors are employing predictive studies being employed simply to establish plurality for sponsorship inside the scientific method (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
when one views every discussion with perceived opponents as an argument that must be won, or is compelled to attack those they perceive to be in disagreement. To artificially force a conclusion in a valid issue of plurality, simply because one perceives they are in an argument against a member of a disdained group (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Extraordinary Claim to Knowledge of a Person - Bucket Characterization from Negative Premise
subject A is a disproved topic. As a ponderer of subject A you are therefore a pseudo scientist; and in being pseudo scientist you therefore then adhere to every other philosophy of pseudoscience and every philosophy a critical observer finds distasteful. Class stereotype disdain with fictionalized evidence (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
where inferences about the nature of individuals are deduced from inference for the group to which those individuals belong (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. It is wrong to assume that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased or credulous mind, then the idea itself must also be a false (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
an argument which is contended though a side’s claim to virtuous features characterizing their substantiation, approach or position (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
the rejection of an entire methodological basis of a scientific argument and all its underpinning data and experimental history simply because one can point to a bad personality involved in the subject, hoaxes, old misconceptions about the subject or an errant conclusion which was drawn from the discipline, irrespective of the actual validity of its core scientific data and argument (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Richeliean Appeal to Authority
/Appeal to Authority : coercion/ : a contention which is considered correct by means of social power or celebrity held on the part of its proponent. An appeal to consensus made by a group that influenced or measured the claimed consensus. An appeal to an authority who is notable at least in part for authoritarian or coercive measures they have employed to maintain power. Also an employment of coercive tactics which include censorship or propaganda-charging the media, establishing a large network of internal spies or sycophants, forbidding the discussion of specific matters in public or publishing of one sided science studies, patrolling of public assemblies or media forums or seeking to harm or defame who dare to disagree (The Ethical Skeptic, n.d.).
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. --Aldous Huxley