What is Social Skepticism?

Social skepticism is kabuki, the activist-minded abuse of science by means of its underlying philosophical vulnerability, skepticism. An imperious agency which has politicized and enslaved science through teaching weaponized fake skepticism to useful idiots.

The social skeptic is a ‘science communicator’ who seeks to foment and exploit enmity between the lay public and science, for benefit of their own celebrity and syndicated influence.

Agendas and dysethics applied in the name of science are not the result of ‘scientism’ per se, as science can never be a teleological ‘-ism’ by its very definition. Science itself is neutral. In similar thought, science delusion, a term coined by Rupert Sheldrake, is the belief that science has already ascertained the principal components of the nature of reality, and that only a small portion of the unknown details remains to be filled in.

Ethical skepticism supports bringing attention to this cognitive mistake on the part of mankind. However, rather than deeming such mistakes an error of science, ethical skepticism instead identifies the problem as imperious social and corporate influences—agencies which corrupt the methods of science, along with the common underlying philosophy in defense of science: skepticism.

It is not the credulous or those prone to magical thinking who are the primary opponents of science, but rather those who insist on disseminating false realities under the guise of its virtue.

Social skepticism simply put, is the activist-minded exploitation and abuse of science by means of its vulnerable underlying philosophy, skepticism.

   Social Skepticism

/philosophy : pseudoscience : rhetoric : sophistry/ :

1. a form of social activism which seeks abuse of science through a masquerade of its underlying philosophical vulnerability, skepticism. An imperious set of political, social, and religious beliefs which proliferate through teaching weaponized fake skepticism to useful idiots. Agency which actively seeks to foment conflict between science and the lay public, which then exploits such conflict to bolster its celebrity and influence.

2. a form of weaponized philosophy which masquerades as science, science enthusiasm, or science communication. Social skepticism enforces specific conclusions and obfuscates competing ideas via a methodical and heavy-handed science embargo. It promotes charades of critical thought, self aggrandizement, and is often chartered to defend corporate/Marxist agendas – all while maintaining a high priority of falsely impugning eschewed individuals and topics. Its philosophies and conclusions are imposed through intimidation on the part of its cabal and cast of dark actors, and are enacted in lieu of and through bypassing actual scientific method. One of the gravest weaknesses of human civilization is its crippling and unaccountable bent toward social coercion. This form of oppression disparages courage and curiosity inside the very arenas where they are most sorely needed.

3. a heady movement which holds a linear inductive hypothesis that that the collective perception of society can be crafted and directed through manipulation of key media, academic, celebrity, and social touchpoints. An oppressive and obfuscating agency tasked to promote specious notions and filter undesired knowledge, opinions, or observations out of the collective gestalt.

An existential hint into the darkness of the human soul
and ubiquitous song under the breath of the oblivious –
that cynical editorial which solely targets disdained insight,
probes only as far as the first convenient niggle, and
cowers from the risk and responsibility to winnow the unknown.

One cannot conduct true science inside a state of spiritual decay
as the heart will not venture where it forbids the mind to tread.

Failures with respect to science are the result of flawed or manipulated philosophy of science. When social control, close-hold embargo or conformance agents subject science to a state of being their lap-dog, serving specific agendas, such agents err in regard to the philosophical basis of science, skepticism. They are not bad scientists, rather bad philosophers, seeking a socialized goal. They are social skeptics.

Why is it Important to Comprehend the Dysethics of Pretend Skepticism?

During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic we observed just how vulnerable the public was to skepticism as propaganda, an unsound philosophy which had been instructed by fake skeptics for decades to prepare them in advance. This flawed form of skepticism cost millions of lives from medical malpractice, denial of treatment in favor of the mRNA Vaccine EUA, and Covid vaccine injury itself.

If the social skeptic can lead you to believe that things which are scientifically true, were arrived at by means of their flawed philosophy, then they can use that same kabuki philosophy to further then coerce you into accepting things which are not true,  are political, religious, economic, or pertain to governing and human rights. The social skeptic therefore is a kind of catalyseur, a third party exploitation specialist driving a wedge between the public and science.¹ They are not scientists inside those arenas they choose to target, nor do they typically bear experience in deductive research. They do not pursue insight into any specific matter; rather, they seek to twist the principles of skepticism such that they just happen to rule out alternatives and embargoed ideas which threaten the self-identifying skeptic and their cronies. Their overarching goal is to train a society which rejects ideas based upon subception and cognitive dissonance, so that they do not threaten the prevailing Narrative.

Although they talk about it incessantly, you will rarely find a social skeptic applying ‘critical thinking’ to their own favored ideas or The Narrative itself – only those ideas they disdain.

Their canned dismissive quip implies neither comprehension nor competence – rather an a priori filtering of ideas which are acceptable to be studied by science or even mentioned beyond shadows and whispers.

Social skeptics bolster their confidence in this corrupted philosophical approach through the reassuring power of their club, cronies, and figurehead celebrities. A cabal which only functions to promote conflict between science and its at-risk stakeholders – and further then exploits that conflict to boost its celebrity and power. They presume to tender preferred final conclusions in lieu of science, without having to account under any semblance of scientific rigor, save for at most skepticism itself. They feign investigations, lack authenticity, afford no method of mutual peer review, eschew any assessment of entailed risk or the harm they serve to cause to both persons and science; yet promote stacks of highly questionable conclusivity, by means of the Raimi-Hall superior belief entitlement established through the intimidating power of their Cabal and its lower caste of griefers and dark actors.

Social skeptics fail to perceive the dime-a-dozen ease by which any research effort or topic can be trivially debunked. Debunking, outside of the context of sound inference, does not demand the ethics, philosophical core strength, nor acumen requisite in scientific hypothesis development or skilled investigation. Moreover, they could care less in reality about the integrity of science, as their purpose is to seek to ridicule or harm any person or idea which runs counter to their truth syndicate. Their objective is not a prosecution of truth after all; their objective is a prosecution of you.

The Anti-Wisdom of Crowds – argumentum ad populum

At the heart of their appeal is essentially a form of gaslighting, suggesting that you are delusional and that everyone else shares their ‘rational thinking’. Nothing could be further from the truth, as in reality the social skeptic is simply coercing silence through intimidation of targeted professional circles and society as a whole.

Their hidden objective is to foster social ignorance, rooted in the principle that since erroneous ideas tend to debunk themselves in a free marketplace of research and thought, imposing restrictions through enforced correctness inevitably leads to a power-enabling ignorance.

Ignorance

Ignorance is not a ‘lack of knowledge’ but is rather a verb, meaning ‘a cultivated quiescence before an idea or group which has become more important to protect than science, human rights, well-being, and life itself.’

   ~ See The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation database of fallacious, crooked, and oppressive manipulation of thought

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie–deliberate, contrived and dishonest–but the myth–persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.

  ~ President John F. Kennedy, Commencement Address at Yale University, June 11 1962

Instead of investigators involved in curious inquiry, they interpret the purpose of skepticism as promoting cultivated ignorance through controversialism and attack. They often seek compensation and salve for some past emotional offense, through the process of belittling others and being hailed by their club for how clever they can appear or how many of the enemy they can harm. Their legacy is often iatrogenic (injury through ‘helping’) – one for which they do not bear even an inkling of guilt, because they are convinced that they represent reason and science.

Therefore, they feel justified in dismissing the deeper dissonance they bear about what is considered truth. They ‘establish’ their method of correctness by armchair or social debunking ghosts, homeopathy, Bigfoot, and UFO’s – further then, applying this religiously-pitched false-method (humbly framing their shtick as ‘the scientific method‘) into directing what their narrative ninny flock is allowed to do with their body, doctor, voting, research, money, thoughts, children, nation, food, speculation, rights, political choices, faith, and health.

Narrative Ninny

A simpleton who believes that automatically adhering to what they have heard is the ‘official truth’, exhibits a superior level of erudition on their part, along with an exclusive monopoly in scientific reason. A fool who is conditioned to be automatically vulnerable to authoritative deception or an official narrative, who habitually allies with any apparent position of power, and is willing to incrementally prevaricate because the virtue of their cause more than makes up for their lie in support of it.

A repetitive process passed from Narrative Ninny to Narrative Ninny, through which a stack of such (permissible) lies transforms into The Narrative. The opposite of a conspiracy theorist, save for their holding a reality shaped by zero research or logic in support their ‘position’.

That Insatiable Craving

The Narrative Ninny’s mind is groomed by a syndicate of self-appointed experts who claim to represent science. However, these experts are merely agents, exploited by third parties through their insatiable desire for attention, along with a paradoxical obsession with power and social categorism. Their narrative is a concoction, fabricated from sciencey-sounding quips, anchoring bias, and an elitist rush derived from dictating what the masses are to believe.

All this is confirmed no better than by ‘Skeptics in the Pub’, a social skeptic organization in New Zealand.²

They call themselves ‘skeptics’ – preferring the US spelling – and see themselves [self appointed] as watchdogs at the crossroads between science [a delusion] and consumer protection [fake virtue].

They think [not look] carefully and logically [circumvent science] about a [targeted] subject, and use the best evidence available [boast] to reach a judgment [social power]. When someone [they don’t like] makes an extraordinary claim [a priori exclusion of ideas], they demand [power] it’s backed up [sea lioning] with extraordinary evidence [Herculean burden of proof]. Faith [stereotyping] doesn’t cut it [fake science]. “It sort of feels like ‘skeptics’ is the wrong name for us,” says Wiles. “We’re not skeptics [correct, they are fake skeptics], we’re critical thinkers [claim to superiority]. When we see [cherry pick] a piece of information [which we don’t like], we ask [biased questions], maybe even unintentionally [subception]?” The New Zealand skeptics [which we aren’t] movement [power] began one February afternoon [drunk] in 1986 [during the golden age of social skepticism, ironically in the era of low information], when seven academics [cocoon dwellers] from around the country decided to form a club [syndicate].

~ Jeremy Olds, Stuff Online Magazine

Note the strong implication that they possess access to knowledge, skills, and disciplines that you lack – a boast that is rarely supported by solid science or comprehensive evidence, apart from an aphorism or two and some instances of ignoratio elenchi questions presented as “critical thinking.” Also, observe how conveniently Skeptics in the Pub omits any reference to their practice of publicly targeting individuals and ideas for a priori exclusion from social and scientific discourse. Finally, notice how this cult thrived best during a period of low information – and now, with the advent of the internet, not only are people raising questions and conducting true skepticism (in-depth research and study), but they are beginning to unabashedly ponder ideas which they were never allowed to before.

If you agree with their beliefs, you will be afforded socially visible tacit approval or off-putting neutrality. Such is the nature of royalty.

This is the reality of fake skepticism. It represents the penultimate form of arrogant pseudoscience, embodying Orwellian-style social coercion from “1984” brought to life in a disturbing contemporary reality.

LLLL

The Ethical Skeptic, “What is Social Skepticism?”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 1 May 2012; Web, https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/

1. Adrianne Jeffries, “At 12 His Science Video Went Viral. At 14 He Fears He Was Too Rude.” The New York Times: Science; 2 April 2018; https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/science/marco-zozaya-vaccines-video.html?smid=tw-nytimesscience&smtyp=cur
2. Jeremy Olds; Stuff Online Magazine: Skeptics look beyond belief, Skeptics in the Pub; 1 Jun 2014; http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/life/10097418/Skeptics-look-beyond-belief