a third type of skepticism

#1
We have the atheist materialist metaphysical naturalist skepticism.

We have the alternative new age skepticism -- skeptiko skepticism is subtype but there are others.

All right. Its 2100. The future is here! Aliens have landed on the whitehouse lawn! NDE research has proven the afterlife is real. Gary Schwartz's grandchildren are among the worlds hyper-elite with their ownership of spirit communication technology and all the knowledge that they can create from the dead.

You hear me. If Grandma has a good idea, schwartz's future children own it!

The last kind of skepticism has to do with social organization post capitalism. Because like it or not, reincarnation, aliens, after life or not, knowledge is unlimited and its control is the last resource that mankind can use to gain power over others.
 
#2
Yes, if I am understanding you correctly SQ, this is what I am identifying as social skepticism. Rather than the method disciplines of 1. scientific skepticism, or the logical disciplines of 2. ethical skepticism - we have this ridiculously childish imposter running about spewing apothegms and fake science, called 3. social skepticism. Any 14 year-old can be a social skeptic, but essentially none can be scientific skeptics nor ethical skeptics. The latter two take decades of self-discipline to begin to apprentice, must less master.

My fear is that, since science and ethics are not producing results which they like - they will simply shift tactics to that of jackbooted social control. Indeed as we take ground from them, this is what they are relying upon more and more over time. It is critical that these fakers foment disdain between the public and scientists - and shift their focus to social activism. They intimidate scientists with 'Here is what you can study, and here is what you cannot study...' and 'the public hates you, the public does not understand you, you must fear and despise the public, they are irrational pseudoscientists - and are not like us at all.' This is how they derive their potency - that very conflict they created, serves to legitimize their existence.

Social Skepticism

/philosophy : pseudoscience : rhetoric : sophistry/ :
1. organized agency which is engineered by means of teaching weaponized fake skepticism to useful idiots.
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 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. Failures with respect to science are the result of flawed or manipulated philosophy of science. When social control, change 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.
The social skeptic is a catalyseur, a third party exploitation specialist fomenting conflict between the public and science. They are not scientists, nor do they bear experience in science. They do not pursue truth in any specific matter; rather, they seek to twist the principles of skepticism such that they just happen to rule out alternatives and ideas which threaten the self-identifying skeptic. They bolster their confidence in this corrupted 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. 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 afford no method of 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 cadre of dark actors.

Ohhhh, and if I missed your mark here as to what you meant, please forgive my hijacking your thread, and expound a little more. :) Your thoughts are of key interest to me.
 
Last edited:
#3
Yes, but you are giving too much authority (in the good sense) or prestige or both to scientists. Political questions of purpose cannot be answered with 'more research is needed'.

What you have said is an ironic commentary about social control. Clearly the business community recognizes itself as the only source of knowledge with a purpose. Do you find purpose at the core of any other field of human endeavor that at least tries to label itself a science. No question mark.

It's entirely possible to be enslaved by your desires and not recognize it until someone gives you the proper context.

Finally, who controls this world more? The skeptics or the believers? Control systems are made by people. The real coup d'etat is not recognizing the disguised arguments from authority. I am not arguing who is objectively right. There is no answer to this in terms of the afterlife or what to do with ones life.

My goal would simply be to get people who disagree to talk to each other. If you haven't noticed that happens rarely on this show yet its an outlier. Usually nothing is said about what one passionately disagrees about. Then violence erupts.
 
#4
Yes, if I am understanding you correctly SQ, this is what I am identifying as social skepticism. Rather than the method disciplines of 1. scientific skepticism, or the logical disciplines of 2. ethical skepticism - we have this ridiculously childish imposter running about spewing apothegms and fake science, called 3. social skepticism. Any 14 year-old can be a social skeptic, but essentially none can be scientific skeptics nor ethical skeptics. The latter two take decades of self-discipline to begin to apprentice, must less master.

My fear is that, since science and ethics are not producing results which they like - they will simply shift tactics to that of jackbooted social control. Indeed as we take ground from them, this is what they are relying upon more and more over time. It is critical that these fakers foment disdain between the public and scientists - and shift their focus to social activism. They intimidate scientists with 'Here is what you can study, and here is what you cannot study...' and 'the public hates you, the public does not understand you, you must fear and despise the public, they are irrational pseudoscientists - and are not like us at all.' This is how they derive their potency - that very conflict they created, serves to legitimize their existence.

Social Skepticism

/philosophy : pseudoscience : rhetoric : sophistry/ :
1. organized agency which is engineered by means of teaching weaponized fake skepticism to useful idiots.
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 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. Failures with respect to science are the result of flawed or manipulated philosophy of science. When social control, change 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.
The social skeptic is a catalyseur, a third party exploitation specialist fomenting conflict between the public and science. They are not scientists, nor do they bear experience in science. They do not pursue truth in any specific matter; rather, they seek to twist the principles of skepticism such that they just happen to rule out alternatives and ideas which threaten the self-identifying skeptic. They bolster their confidence in this corrupted 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. 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 afford no method of 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 cadre of dark actors.

Ohhhh, and if I missed your mark here as to what you meant, please forgive my hijacking your thread, and expound a little more. :) Your thoughts are of key interest to me.
The problem is that because 'social scepticism' is done for some external purpose, it never identifies itself as being SS. For that reason, I think it is better to dissect specific examples.

Yes science obfuscates evidence it doesn't like - of course it damn well does!

David
 
#5
Yes science obfuscates evidence it doesn't like - of course it damn well does!
The reason I cite this entity called social skepticism, is because science is a neutral entity. Science has no axe to grind. The whole purpose of this (media) group called social skepticism is to foment distrust of science and scientists on the part of the lay public. To foment conflict between the public and science.

So when we blame 'science' - rather than the philosophy underlying it (bad skepticism). We play right into their game.

1. Lay public: Science and Scientists cannot be fully trusted
2. Scientists: The lay public is one seething mass of anti-science credulity and distrust of scientists

ergo

3. False skepticism must step in and adjudicate the public's interaction with scientists
4. False skepticism must step in and 'communicate science' to the lay public

therefore

5. False skepticism as a club gains power and unmerited notoriety, as science.
 
#6
The reason I cite this entity called social skepticism, is because science is a neutral entity. Science has no axe to grind. The whole purpose of this (media) group called social skepticism is to foment distrust of science and scientists on the part of the lay public. To foment conflict between the public and science.

So when we blame 'science' - rather than the philosophy underlying it (bad skepticism). We play right into their game.

1. Lay public: Science and Scientists cannot be fully trusted
2. Scientists: The lay public is one seething mass of anti-science credulity and distrust of scientists

ergo

3. False skepticism must step in and adjudicate the public's interaction with scientists
4. False skepticism must step in and 'communicate science' to the lay public

therefore

5. False skepticism as a club gains power and unmerited notoriety, as science.
That seems too convoluted to me - as I see it a lot of modern science is facing a real crisis.

David
 
#8
That seems too convoluted to me - as I see it a lot of modern science is facing a real crisis.

David
It is a bit more complex - but it is necessary complexity. This is a condition which is not complicated nor convoluted. To simplify this too far, so that it is easy, constitutes a Bridgman Reduction... reducing something to be too simple, so that its effectiveness or message is lost in the process.
 
#9
The reason I cite this entity called social skepticism, is because science is a neutral entity. Science has no axe to grind. The whole purpose of this (media) group called social skepticism is to foment distrust of science and scientists on the part of the lay public. To foment conflict between the public and science.

So when we blame 'science' - rather than the philosophy underlying it (bad skepticism). We play right into their game.

1. Lay public: Science and Scientists cannot be fully trusted
2. Scientists: The lay public is one seething mass of anti-science credulity and distrust of scientists

ergo

3. False skepticism must step in and adjudicate the public's interaction with scientists
4. False skepticism must step in and 'communicate science' to the lay public

therefore

5. False skepticism as a club gains power and unmerited notoriety, as science.
Facts are not neutral within feeling beings, though i do understand why you would prefer objective, neutral, dead science.

Furthermore, there is a very real dispute as to who is the TRUE expert. This true in many different ways. And not in a trivial, 'we cannot tell if the earth is spheroid without the proper qualifications".
 
#10
The problem is that because 'social scepticism' is done for some external purpose, it never identifies itself as being SS. For that reason, I think it is better to dissect specific examples.

Yes science obfuscates evidence it doesn't like - of course it damn well does!

David
So when we blame 'science' - rather than the philosophy underlying it (bad skepticism). We play right into their game.

1. Lay public: Science and Scientists cannot be fully trusted
2. Scientists: The lay public is one seething mass of anti-science credulity and distrust of scientists

ergo

3. False skepticism must step in and adjudicate the public's interaction with scientists
4. False skepticism must step in and 'communicate science' to the lay public

therefore

5. False skepticism as a club gains power and unmerited notoriety, as science.
We are both picking out examples that match our intuitions and intentions, not being the neutral fact finders with nothing to do! In my opinion, there is plenty of room for well informed social skepticism. One kind of error occurs when the uninformed or just lazy public gets a hold of the emotion generated by media critics and their allies.
 
#11
In reading about skepticism more, I realize that skepticism is a much larger umbrella term than I had realized. The idea that someone could claim to be a skeptic while holding to a particular position was something I thought to be self refuting, as I equated the pyrrhonism school of skepticism as the 'real' thing. How do we differentiate which form of skepticism is genuine, particularly when someones label of being a skeptic comes entailed with various position statements?
 
#12
there is plenty of room for well informed social skepticism.
This is the whole point being made. There is no such thing as 'well informed social skepticism'. It is like being a gentleman rapist.

There exists valid ethical skepticism, yes... and​
There is enforced upon useful idiots, an invalid form skepticism - used to control people and thought. There is no role/goal for the latter except self-aggrandizement, greed, control and abuse.​

This is a dispassionate survey of our 'science in the public interest' landscape, and has nothing to do with personal ontological guesses or intentions.
 
#13
In reading about skepticism more, I realize that skepticism is a much larger umbrella term than I had realized. The idea that someone could claim to be a skeptic while holding to a particular position was something I thought to be self refuting, as I equated the pyrrhonism school of skepticism as the 'real' thing. How do we differentiate which form of skepticism is genuine, particularly when someones label of being a skeptic comes entailed with various position statements?
Exactly LE. Skepticism is the philosophy underlying science, but is not science itself. Skepticism itself does not produce nor hold answers. This is key. Social skeptics promote specific answers under the guise of skepticism. There is no such thing.

Skepticism is the mindset one undertakes in preparation to do science. Then science produces evidence, and sometimes answers.

Those who produce single or simple answers from skepticism - are FAKING.... (this is why they are underway on changing the name of the discipline to 'critical thinking')

The purpose of skepticism is to raise and protect PLURALITY - not answers. Which serves to introduce one axiom of ethical skepticism:

Demarcation of Skepticism
Once plurality is necessary under Ockham’s Razor, it cannot be dismissed by means of skepticism alone.

When fake skeptics think that we are fighting to promote one answer, this is most often incorrect. We are fighting for plurality - and science. They are blocking this.
 
Last edited:
#14
This is the whole point being made. There is no such thing as 'well informed social skepticism'. It is like being a gentleman rapist.

There exists valid ethical skepticism, yes... and​
There is enforced upon useful idiots, an invalid form skepticism - used to control people and thought. There is no role/goal for the latter except self-aggrandizement, greed, control and abuse.​

This is a dispassionate survey of our 'science in the public interest' landscape, and has nothing to do with personal ontological guesses or intentions.
It must be a definitional issue then that cannot be resolved with typing at a keyboard.

Truth is more complex than objective truth -- yes or no? Are their truths that are cultural? For example ethics clearly relies on social constructions yet its clear different methods of understanding ethics, such as deontology or virtue based systems give different answers to the same issues based upon different cultures.

Concretly, drug policy is an example. The effects of alcohol and marijuana are culturally dependent.

Then there is this issue:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3680134/

In short the profit motive and objective truth! Surely there is room for critics of critics -- metacriticism, at the social level?
 
#15
In reading about skepticism more, I realize that skepticism is a much larger umbrella term than I had realized. The idea that someone could claim to be a skeptic while holding to a particular position was something I thought to be self refuting, as I equated the pyrrhonism school of skepticism as the 'real' thing. How do we differentiate which form of skepticism is genuine, particularly when someones label of being a skeptic comes entailed with various position statements?
We cannot disentangle the meaning of words from their social context. This doesn't mean we cannot come to agreement, but perhaps efforts to do so are much harder than generally recognized. If labels get in the way than its useful to use different words since we all have fairly inaccurate language maps.
 
#16
It must be a definitional issue then that cannot be resolved with typing at a keyboard.

Truth is more complex than objective truth -- yes or no? Are their truths that are cultural? For example ethics clearly relies on social constructions yet its clear different methods of understanding ethics, such as deontology or virtue based systems give different answers to the same issues based upon different cultures.

Concretly, drug policy is an example. The effects of alcohol and marijuana are culturally dependent.

In short the profit motive and objective truth! Surely there is room for critics of critics -- metacriticism, at the social level?
Truth is more complex than is epistemological truth, yes. But then again science does not purport to deal with all truth - only incremental prior art and its critical path of development.

Yes, metacriticism is necessary - in science and skepticism that is called now, 1. peer review and 2. stakeholder accountability. As a Buddhist I cannot apply skepticism to Confucianism or monetary policy for instance. That is simply debate of general philosophy and impulse. It is not science.

But social skepticism focuses on 'representing science' and, rather than doing peer review of study results, chooses which subjects are allowed to be studied to begin with - and this constrains that cadre of dark actors to a smaller footprint than you are addressing.

You are talking about philosophical debates, not skepticism. Skepticism is that philosophy which particularly pertains to the exercise of science.
 
#17
Exactly LE. Skepticism is the philosophy underlying science, but is not science itself. Skepticism itself does not produce nor hold answers. This is key. Social skeptics promote specific answers under the guise of skepticism. There is no such thing.

Skepticism is the mindset one undertakes in preparation to do science. Then science produces evidence, and sometimes answers.

Those who produce single or simple answers from skepticism - are FAKING.... (this is why they are underway on changing the name of the discipline to 'critical thinking')

The purpose of skepticism is to raise and protect PLURALITY - not answers. Which serves to introduce one axiom of ethical skepticism:

Demarcation of Skepticism
Once plurality is necessary under Ockham’s Razor, it cannot be dismissed by means of skepticism alone.

When fake skeptics think that we are fighting to promote one answer, this is most often incorrect. We are fighting for plurality - and science. They are blocking this.
I basically agree with all of that, but wish a legitimate form of social doubt was applied more broadly among the public, not among certain 'others' you have not named. If you want to define it out of existence feel free, but then i will just use different words to carefully describe what i want.

As an example of what angers me, think of the use of court rooms to define out of existence near death experience science! Don't think it cannot happen? Its a whole field.
 
#18
We cannot disentangle the meaning of words from their social context. This doesn't mean we cannot come to agreement, but perhaps efforts to do so are much harder than generally recognized. If labels get in the way than its useful to use different words since we all have fairly inaccurate language maps.
Correct: Wittgenstein - mankind suffers from bewitchment of his intelligence by his language.
 
#19
I basically agree with all of that, but wish it was applied more broadly among the public, not among certain 'others' you have not named.
But applying 'more broadly' offers this laxity in Wittgenstein language, which results in bewitchment. All things being equal a term should be constrained as opposed to equivocally applied in broad scope.
 
#20
but then i will just use different words to carefully describe what i want.

As an example of what angers me, think of the use of court rooms to define out of existence near death experience science! Don't think it cannot happen? Its a whole field.
Yes, a set of words for this is very appropriate... have at it!! I love that. When we find that new words are necessary - this is the first hint that one adequately grasps a subject. It is an intelligent critique and critical path development - the key flag of understanding.
 
Top