Radical Skepticism: An Answer for Shizmoo

Shizmoo,
This question reminds me of the time that I posted a question on Massimo Pigliucci’s blog asking him how he kept his arguments grounded to avoid circularity and infinite regress in order to make sure that the arguments were true. He always kept his comments moderated, and that question never saw the light of day. But I can answer for him, and I will at the end of this article.

This is a legitimate issue regarding the grounding of rational arguments. Radical skepticism seems to bump into the grounding process, run it over, flatten it in the road, producing chaos. But it really doesn’t.

Let’s take a slow walk through the issues.

“You said to post any question in latest post. Read some of your first principle articles and I was just curious about you and your response to the Münchhausen/agrippa trilemma.
Axioms are question begging unjustified assumptions, circular reasoning is obviously fallacious, and infinite regress isn't possible. There is no way to know truth or anything being a finite human forced to employ fallacious reasoning as noted above. “

As a preliminary, it is easy to reject circularity and infinite regresses, because they are not grounded in anything like true knowledge. Circularity refers back to itself as the authority for its claims; infinite regressions have no stopping point which can be called authority for its claims. This leaves two possibilities (there are four, not three as the trilemma implies, total). It leaves axioms and chaos. So we need to compare how axioms are known to the proposition that chaos is “known” to be the foundation of human knowledge.

First, when asserting that one “knows that nothing can be known”, as you acknowledge below, that is internally contradictory. But the issue then becomes twofold: that the concept of internal contradiction has the issue of apparently not being a known true principle, having no axioms for itself, other than its own self-evidence, and that the chaos proposition refers only to itself (circular).

Second, axioms are not “question begging unjustified assumptions”, they are self-evident truths, theoretically requiring and receiving no independent “proofs”. But if radical skepticism is asserted as an a priori truth, then nothing is ever self-evidently true, including radical skepticism. Nor can it be reasoned whether this circularity is fatal to reasoning, because there is no longer any reasoning possible.

Third, if radical skepticism is asserted (as truth, of course), then it cannot be known whether the basic statement of the trilemma itself is or is not contradictory, or whether the principle of Noncontradiction is or is not valid, or whether the universe, when observed, would hold to non-contradiction. So asserting radical skepticism as an axiom in order to prove axioms are false is a chaotic statement, which has no meaning.

This idea of axiomatic radical skepticism leads to Nietzsche’s Anti-Rationalism theory and the presumptive “knowledge” that, in the absence of knowledge, only the natural progression of “will to power” exists, and that this cannot be refuted since logic, truth, good and evil cannot exist.

But if the observation of “will to power” is to be asserted as valid and true, then that presupposes that (a) truth actually does exist; and (b) observation, itself, is a valid operator in the pursuit of validity and truth.

And if observation is a valid and true operator in the pursuit of what is true, then the observation of self-evident truths cannot be discarded as invalid. I.e., it cannot be self-evidently true that self-evident truths do not exist, even in a chaotic and irrational universe. Further, if observation of order in the universe exists, then the universe is observably not chaotic. Thus it is possible that self-evident truths exist which can be used to ground processes of rational thinking about the universe.

That, in turn, negates the first horn of the trilemma, because no longer can axioms be declared to be “question begging unjustified assumptions”, the axioms themselves having been grounded in observation of the universe, and the concept of self-evidence.

The slow walk continues briefly into the darkness as we explore the presumption of the necessity of radical skepticism and intellectual chaos:

However, it is also “true” that ultimate, non-axiomatic, presupposition of radical skepticism cannot be logically defeated, because it merely denies the rational ability of logic, and that denial comes from an illogical and irrational basis. An argument based on irrationality cannot be defeated using logic. There actually is uncertainty and unknowablility which exists. For that reason alone, (but with other reasons which support it), fallibility is built into rational reasoning, with the use of the following caveats:

1. Observation is never complete.

2. Self-evidence is based on observation; thus self-evidence is never complete.

3. In practice, the confidence in observation and self-evidence is based on induction of numerous observations which all are congruent. However, induction is then necessarily presupposed as at least contingently valid, and self-evident in a probabilistic fashion. Should induction be proven false, then rationality is not possible. But how could rationality be PROVEN false in a presumed irrational universe where, under radical skepticism, intellectual chaos reigns? Because it cannot be proven false under radical skepticism, it is merely intuited to be false, thus rendering intuition to be a presupposed valid and true condition of thought,

4. Intuition must be asserted, in order to work free of circularity. For radical skeptics to intuit chaos, they must assume intuition to be true. This is necessary in order to intuit that (a) induction is completely false; (b) observation is a false pursuit; (c) congruence cannot be known; (d) self-evidence is false.

Further, the radical skeptic must intuit that he is NOT a brain in a vat totally dependent upon hardwired inputs, nor is he an AI routine programmed solely for non-intuitive rejectionism.

If intuition is NOT true, then the radical skeptic cannot assert the truth of intellectual chaos vs. intellectual order and rational capabilities.

5. Because the radical skeptic has by default asserted that intuition truly exists, is valid, and is a useful intellectual tool since it is necessary for intuiting radical skepticism (to be true), it is therefore also available as a tool for the logician who is not a radical skeptic. If the skeptic can use intuition then it must also be granted to the non-skeptic. If it is not granted, then he cannot assert radical skepticism either.

6. Further, if the radical skeptic intuits that items 4 (a)-(d) are true statements, then he automatically grants the existence of truth.

7. Because the radical skeptic has granted that intuition exists, and is a valid tool for declaring truth, and that truth exists, then it is possible to intuit that observations and inductions can lead to at least a contingent truth. This has been granted by the radical skeptic in order for him to claim radical skepticism.

8. Induction depends upon observations to look for and find non-chaotic, orderly categories of existence in the universe. It can be intuited that this process works, because of historical successes in doing so. One of the observations of existence is non-contradiction. This can be asserted as a contingent truth, which a contingency absurdly low and vanishingly small.

So now we have some criteria for knowability: intuition, observations, inductions, contingent truth, and non-contradiction of existence. These criteria must be granted by the radical skeptic since they arise purely by the process of justifying radical skepticism; they are both presumed valid and presumed necessary. They must be granted also then as tools available to the non-radical-skeptic.

But here we still have two competing assertions:

A. It is true that intuition proves radical skepticism is valid.

B. It is true that intuition proves that self-evidence is valid.

This presents us with a Truth Table, which the radical skeptic cannot deny due to having used all the element it contains in justifying radical skepticism:

1. Radical skepticism is true; self-evidence is false.

2. Radical skepticism is false; self-evidence is true.

3. Neither radical skepticism nor self-evidence is true.

4. Both radical skepticism and self-evidence are true.

Now we can do an analysis of the Truth Table, point by point:

1. If radical skepticism is true, it is also unknowable and cannot be true. This is an outcome of both the assertion of unknowability and the rejection of noncontradiction. Option one is false because it makes a false and impossible statement about the truth value of radical skepticism.

2. If radical skepticism is false, then self-evidence is valid and knowability exists; Option 2 is viable.

3. It is possible that some other kind of reasoning, which is neither skeptical nor grounded is valid; Option 3 is presumably possible but not observed.

4. It is not possible for radical skepticism to be true, IF self-evidence is true. Option 4 is false.

Now we must choose between truth table options 2 and 3.

If Option 2 is false, then option 3 is the remaining possibility. But option 3 is not observed; it is not produced by induction; it cannot be self-evidently “true”; it is purely a logical construct without any correlate in observable existence. Option 2, however, is observable, it is congruent with the properties which are granted by the radical skeptic, and therefore is the only option remaining which fits the criteria of knowability.

At this point we must acknowledge that the analysis process itself – used above – can be denied a priori and without reasoning by radical skeptics. But they cannot claim to have used logic or evidence or reasoning in their process, and so their conclusion is completely outside of logic and rational processes, rendering it completely irrational.

The ability to invalidate rationality by asserting the Truth of irrationality is a closed loop, one which is incestuous and yet intuits the existence of truth and other rational tools in order to arrive at the “truth” of irrationality. But we have now shown that asserting intuition does not lead to radical skepticism.

”I know that sentence is a knowledge/truth claim, but if say the Law of Non-Contradiction(question begging assumption you hold) isn't true then my statement isn't "contradictory" or "false".

I don't see how one can not have an epistemology of radical skepticism which is part of atheism compared to theists who claim to know things such as truth when they aren't omniscient and trapped in the fallacious circle unable to justify their knowledge/truth.”

Radical skeptics are the least able to prove their position to be valid and true of any worldview. They can produce no argument or truth claim at all under their own assertion of unknowablity. In fact, your assertion that circularity is a problem cannot be a truth principle under radical skepticism. Your assertion that they aren’t omniscient cannot be a known truth in an environment of complete unknowability. Your requirement that they justify any argument logically cannot be a known requirement in a universe of unknowability - an environment where no knowledge can be justified, where absurdity such as noncontradiction cannot be judged.

You have, in fact, relied on traditional logic in your assertions of unknowability. But if you really believed in unknowability and radical skepticism, you could not use traditional logic, you could only “not know” anything, period. The rejection of conditions for judging absurdity – for example, rejecting noncontradiction – means that the radical skeptic cannot judge anything to be absurd, for there are no knowable conditions for making such a judgment under radical skepticism.

The additional issue is that if there is no knowability, then radical skeptics cannot “know” anything about the validity of theist claims, and therefore any criticisms of theism by radical skeptics actually are absurd since they are made using traditional logic, not radical skepticism, and therefore qualify for being judged for absurdity.

So the use of radical skepticism to assert the validity of Atheism fails, using its own criteria. Further, Atheism cannot make a case for itself using either disciplined logic, or radical skepticism, or observations made in the discipline of empirical, hypothetico-deductive, experimental, falsifiable, replicable, open data, peer-reviewed and published scientific contingent knowledge.

Yet Atheists and skeptics must be held to their common claims of being grounded in logic and science. They are not so grounded. And they cannot defeat theist arguments, so they make false claims such as “having no theist beliefs” when it is clear and obvious that they do, in fact, believe theist arguments are false and that they reject them, but cannot prove it. So Atheism is a false basis for worldview construction, and leads to false worldviews.

To return to Massimo's rejection of my grounding question: Philosophers such as Pigliucci are not engaged in making arguments regarding subects which have the capability of being grounded in axioms or truths. What they do is to opine on subjects which have no possible grounding at all. That is their intellectual environment. So their intellectual maunderings are usually circular and are based on their own authority, and in the final analysis, in the authority of their tribal associations.

Free Thought and Hugo

[I have moved this conversation here because this is getting rather long at the original comment page, which is HERE]

With Hugo around, teleological inevitability seems to take over: I can’t resist responding. It’s because the things Hugo says are voiced in the calm assurance of their universal truth yet are based in demonstrably anti-rational principles.

Hugo says,

” In my opinion, you cannot be both a God believer and a free thinking who think independently. You have to concede that God either does not care or cannot listen to your thoughts to be a free thinker.”

He proclaims this to be an opinion, but contrary to earlier proclamations of openness, it is perfectly predictable that this will not change for Hugo despite any input. Regardless, here is some input:

The discipline of logic (hence rational thought and empirical science) was consolidated and preserved by legions of theists. One must be historically ignorant not to know that. There is no known logical deduction which violates any theist proposition (if there were, Atheists, including Dawkins, would use it daily). Yet every Atheist pretends that every theist proposition has already been invalidated, purely on the basis of the caricature of theism being presupposed a priori false, a presupposition which Hugo has accepted as valid. Thus the common Atheist position of not requiring a rebuttal from themselves to support their reasons for rejecting theist arguments: blind rejection is sufficient.

Free Thinking is an absurdity for the following reason: free thinking works outside of the discipline and parameters of logical boundaries. If it did not, it would not be “free”, it would be subservient and beholden to outside principles – an abomination to free thinking. Thus “free thinkers” who believe their own conclusions based on stacks of ungrounded and false premises are actually both self-elevating beyond the tethers of logic and subjectively subservient to their own self-revelations of ungrounded (and thus false) “truths”.

Theism is not bound by a fear of thought as Hugo would have it; it is rather tethered to a discipline: logic as the path to rationality and the only valid path to comprehending the universe and our place in it. Science is a subset of that mindset, and is valid only for the restricted intellectual spaces of physical, deterministic processes which submit to empirical analysis. That science is limited is not accepted by free thinkers whose axioms do not include valid definitions of determinism (the boundaries of determinism are vastly plastic or rigidly held depending on application, or otherwise free thinkers would not be free).

The human mind is both non-deterministic and an agent. The agency inherent in the human mind must be rejected irrationally (using personal agency to reject the concept of agency) if the free thinking non-theist is to maintain determinism - Scientism – physicalism as the correct path to understanding absolutely everything. After all, if a mental activity is predetermined under determinism, then it cannot be a “free thought”, can it?

Thus the free thinker constrains himself to the most false aspect of thought: accepting the non-coherence of the Scientism – physicalism ideology over the acceptance of the validity of disciplined logic as a constraint on rational thought. The two, Scientism and logic, are totally incompatible. So the rejection of logic in favor of Scientism - physicalism cannot be a product of logic. It is purely an emotional decision.

Because Scientism – physicalism and Atheism all support the individual’s self-image of personal control over intellect (as opposed to the control of logic over a submissive intellect), the overwhelming trend of those types of individuals is toward the self-image of personal superiority. After all, if a person thinks up “truths” which reject the concepts of those others who are intellectually subservient to logic, then the totally open “truth thinker” is superior to the subservient individual, right?

Again, it is an emotional, personally elevating conclusion, borne of the rejection of subservience to any rational control including disciplined logic. And it is emotionally serviced with out-of-hand rejection of theist positions, but with no counter argument or refutation even being necessary.

For Hugo and free thought, one cannot think clearly if one is subservient; one must reject subservience and be free of the hindrances that constrain thought to specific processes.

Hugo says,

” Determinism is complicated because we don't have all the answers to how we can be thinking human beings based on solely natural processes. Adding a God to the equation does not explain anything however... It does not say how God would have built us to be like that, it does not explain how a non-natural soul would work in synch with the natural body without leaving any trace.”

Here Hugo demonstrates his own subservience to determinism, to Scientism – physicalism. Determinism is complicated? No. Determinism is merely this: every physical effect has a physical cause which can be measured using other physical techniques. It’s not complicated. The complication comes from the actions of humans which are outside of the boundaries of determinism, yet must crammed forcefully into those boundaries due to free thinking. That's where adopting plastic boundaries to the definition of determinism become necessary: purely to defend determinism as still being valid where it clearly is not.

The assertion of a non-physical agent being involved does not involve requiring those explanations which Hugo demands of it. Atheists love to use the analogy of accepting gravity despite the undefined source for gravity to explain their inability to provide any evidence for evolution. Or first life. Or huge semantic information load in first DNA. But they demand all these non-essential “explanatory” issues regarding lack of any obvious material evidence for an outside agent. This sort of Special Pleading to conceal Category Errors permeates free thinking. But it is not an issue to the free thinker, who is not subservient to the rules of logic and rational thinking: they operate in a space where Special Pleading and Category Error are without consequence. Thus that operating space is anti-rational and anti-intellectual.

Hugo says,

”I believe there is always a morally acceptable choice in all situations, just like there is always something true and objective, but we, humans, need to work together to figure out what it is. No one has special access to what's true or moral.”

the assertion that there “is always something true and objective”, yet no one knows what it is, is absurd on the face of it. To combine that with the assertion of no one having “access to what's true or moral”, special or common, contradicts the first assertion, a spectacular non-coherence. What Hugo appears to want us to believe by making these assertions is that all humans need to get together to come up with a human-derivation for morality. The consequence is obvious: that set of moral principles would be relative to the opinions of those most powerful and able to influence the outcome. This produces the following: (a) relative principles, (b) advantageous to the powerful (read some Nietzsche, Hugo), (c) declared to be “true and objective”. So this obviously is a validation of the Leftward flow of Atheist mentalities (see also amygdala differences in Leftists).

Further, the use of the term, “no one”, is a dead give-away that the reference is to a belief that is being projected as a truth. Can Hugo prove his assertion about what applies to absolutely no individual in the history of the universe? This statement is based on the rejectionism which is inherent in free thought, a rejectionism based in the practice of radical skepticism and the premise of personal dominance of all thought regarding all existence.

Hugo says,

” What I was trying to tell Stan is that we are all people who hold values, who have core principles we are fighting for. This has nothing to do with emotions. And you are correct, it has nothing to do with metaphysical naturalism because it does NOT dicatate anything. Again, you clearly did not know that but to me it's a consequence of my worldview; not a source nor a base.”

Of course Hugo holds values; he creates his own. That's necessary for those who live in a world where all other morality is rejected. No one that Hugo knows is privy to universal moral values. So it is necessary to create one's own. His values clearly are of the nature of determinism, physicalism, and Scientism, and he cannot separate the cause from the effect, because they are interdependent in a circular fashion. Physical universe > determinism > Atheism > physical universe. In a circular argument, which is premise and which is conclusion? It's a slippery, slidey worldview, which is convenient to unconstrained free thought. Free Thought always results in free creation of values, for those who actually want values.

Time constraints: I must stop here.

Sagan On Skepticism

I don't like cults, and the Sagan cult is especially obnoxious to me. His "pale blue dot" in an ocean of empty is especially annoying, because, contra Sagan himself, it is a cloying emotional saccharinity, an irrelevant so-what, an embarrassment for a science statement. And I have other issues with Sagan, but I came across this statement he made and it is one I wish I had had handy in a recent email conversation I had:

""If you're only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn anything. You become a crotchety misanthrope convinced that nonsense is ruling the world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.) Since major discoveries at the borderlines of science are rare, experiences will tend to confirm your grumpiness. But every now and then a new idea turns out to be on the mark, valid and wonderful. If you're too resolutely and uncompromisingly skeptical, you're going to miss (or resent) the transforming discoveries in science, and either way, you will be obstructing understanding and progress. Mere skepticism is not enough.""

These days skepticism has had its definition changed into the radical form, that in which one merely asserts, "I will never be convinced and you are a fool to try".

The old definition of skepticism will have to be applied to other words that have not become cult names, possibly "cautious", or "in doubt", or "questioning". In fact, for issues of scientific inquiry, only such words should ever come up, since actual scientists know the contingent nature of science. And that is what Sagan has said.

A Skeptic Leaves Skepticism

Stephen Bond was born in Ireland, and admits to an early hatred of Ireland’s drunken culture, Jesus, and Christianity amongst other things. As soon as he was old enough and able, he left all those things behind and moved to France, winding up apparently in Belgium.

He became a capital-S Skeptic, and for years haunted the internet skeptic sites. But he has left Skepticism behind with a scathing assessment of its inhabitants. It’s not that he has changed any philosophical positions; he merely became skeptical of the Skeptics. He has written an article describing his rejection, and the reasons for it are those which are obvious to those of us who have always been skeptical of the Skeptics, but which apparently are new to him. Nonetheless Bond spares no one any feelings when he slashes the Skeptics’ sexism, racism, elitism, positivism, hate mongering, etc. And yet he still feels that “friars, preachers, despots” … are the ” historical enemies of progress”. Apparently sexism, racism, elitism, positivism are objectionable but don’t get in the way of whatever he thinks progress constitutes.

There are a couple of other articles in his “opinions” file which are interesting conjunctions to the above article: utopia, and purity. I haven’t read all his work, and I agree with only certain portions, but it is interesting writing and a view into real, if seemingly under-informed, skeptical inquiry.

Further Thoughts on Skepticism

Vox Day recently identified some characteristics of Skeptics which are Anti-Skeptical, some of which I will paraphrase here:

1. Asymmetrical application of skepticism. Arguing that there is a “need to challenge dogma” is itself a dogma, and is AntiSkeptical.

2. Argue based on what he, himself as a “Skeptic” holds to be true, despite claim suspension of judgment.

3. Reaching a judgment as opposed to suspension of judgment. This is quite common: “your argument is false” is a judgment, not a suspension of judgment. A suspension of judgment would be, “I can’t know if your argument is false or true”, the reason being, “I can’t know anything under my own rules of knowledge”.

4. Does not compare competing rational positions (dogmas) against each other, “…but rather, attempts to change the discussion to a nonsensical one concerning second-order beliefs.” My example of this would be the constant use of FSM and orbiting tea pot constructs as if they were actually competing rational positions rather than actually being obviously spurious creations made specifically in order to deny the responsibility for making a logical case themselves. (If you deny the existence of the FSM then I can deny the existence of non-material reality – or anything and everything, just because you denied the existence of the FSM).

5. Asking repeatedly “why” and “but how do you know that you know” is (in my view) self-defeating due to the internal contradiction of Radical Skepticism, which is what those assertions represent.

6. Subscribing to other things which are unknown, and/or cannot produce any certitude for knowing, such as science. This is an overt demonstration of the asymmetrical application of Skepticism.

7. Limit their “philosophical Skepticism” to certain areas which they designate, and not to other areas; this is in service to a specific dogma and not Skepticism.

Day concludes that asymmetrical Skepticism “...isn’t merely dogmatic, anti-skeptical, and incoherent, it’s also dishonest and intellectually reprehensible.”

The ongoing issue is that Atheists cannot participate intellectually in a conversation involving logic, because they have no actual logical principles of their own – certainly not those of disciplined deduction, and so have no logical argument to present. As a result, they instead engage at the only level available to them, the attempt to destroy logical arguments by using any destructive techniques which they can muster in their assault.

Radical Skepticism, applied asymmetrically, has probably seemed to work to some extent in the past, so they keep trying it despite having the rug of respectable rational argumentation pulled from under their feet, demonstrating the lack of foundational axioms to support themselves.

The rush to attempt to destroy a competing argument while using only tools of irrational destruction is a firm indicator of the possession of an irrational ideology, one which fears exposure and attempts to destroy the opposition with irrationality, devolving into personal attacks of increasing volume and intensity. As far as attacking the argument itself, that is not done except through denial and ridicule and the occasional false charge of fallacy, generally Straw Man.

Skepticism, as a general philosophy, self-defeats at the point where the skeptic asserts the certainty of the skeptical position. If a philosophical Skeptic declares that dogma is bad, or that something must be challenged, he has left Skepticism and is asserting a position. But Skepticism as a philosophy is the position that no position on anything, ever can be taken because nothing can be known for certain.

It doesn’t take long to peel back the Skeptical front and find the position which is being hidden behind the skirts.

A true Skeptic, one who actually believes in Skepticism, will never assert anything other than “I cannot know that for certain”.

But even that is self-defeating, because the Skeptic is certain of that position.

For most avowed “Skeptics”, however, Skepticism is just a tool, a form of attack on knowledge from a position which they think requires no defense. In reality it is anti-rational, being internally contradictory.

Skepticism, when focused on itself, fails again. If Skepticism is “I can’t know that”, regarding the statement, “I can’t know that”, then it is possible that it could be known. (I can’t know that I can’t know…) So the entire philosophy crumbles under its own weight of internal non-coherence.

In fact, going back to the first sentences above, when a Skeptic declares that there is a need for certainty, he is taking a position; if he defines what certainty entails, he is taking a position. He cannot take positions with certainty if nothing can be known.

None of this is to say that being skeptical of obviously incorrect or absurd propositions is not useful. But unless the skepticism is principled enough to accept rationally probable logic when it is demonstrated, then it is not skepticism, it is dogmatic, destructive denialism which will not be moved by any logic or evidence whatsoever. And it is in service to a personal agenda, which must be protected at all costs, including the sacrifice of logic and rationality.

Atheism's Last Stand: Anti-Rationalism and Asymmetrical Skepticism

Recently the minor Atheists roaming the internet have taken to increasing the power to their shields by morphing several new definitions of Atheism. This has been necessary due to the pressure placed upon them to provide evidence and logic to support their worldview and belief system. So the Atheist response has been increasingly in the direction of denying that they have anything which requires evidence and logic, and therefore they have no need to provide it. This is accomplished via the Atheist sliding and slippery definition tactic.

Atheism has always been knowledge-negative in the sense that it does not produce any knowledge; it merely denies that there can be any knowledge outside of a certain category or type which is favored by the Atheist and Philosophical Materialist. So it is knowledge-eliminativist or knowledge-negative.

Being knowledge-negative is the primary characteristic of the practice of Skepticism as well, and Atheism is a subset of Skepticism. Skepticism aspires to sitting alongside the stream of knowledge and taking pot shots at knowledge bits and pieces which come along the stream, knowledge quanta which the Skeptic doesn’t care for. But the Skeptic is careful not to actually engage the knowledge stream because that would involve intellectual activities for which he is ill prepared. So Skepticism is merely the assertion that “you cannot know that”, with the reason being, “with any certainty”. Taken to the Skeptical limit, nothing can be known with any certainty (we cannot prove with certainty that we are not all merely simulations in a huge computer program somewhere, and everything in our “reality” is a delusion, so that in fact, nothing exists, even ourselves). Thus, under escalating Skepticism any and all knowledge is deniable, depending upon the value assigned to “certainty”. The Skeptic just sits and chooses which knowledge he likes and which he wants to destroy. This is Asymmetrical Skepticism.

Nietzsche (the last and only honest Atheist) drove this point home: there are no self-evident, axiomatic truths because they cannot be proved. Ever the intellectual avant garde, he drove the point to its obvious necessary conclusion: rational discourse cannot exist. So he developed his philosophy of Anti-Rationalism, which turned out to be indiscernible from insanity.

The new Atheist drive toward denialism is merely an internally dishonest version of Nietzsche’s more honest admission. The attempt to rescue themselves from any burden to explain their beliefs has morphed from “there is no god”, to “we have no god theory”, to “we have no god beliefs”, to “we have no beliefs in god/s”, to “we have no beliefs”, depending of course on the particular Atheist involved, and whatever stage of the argument he needs to protect himself from.

The intent appears to be to become absolutely knowledge-neutral, having no intellectual position betrayed or exposed to the necessity of defending it using actual evidence or logic. Since achieving knowledge-neutrality is rather like balancing a bowling ball on the point of a needle, it fails rather badly under disciplined logical applications of entropy. And this is where the massive Atheist intellectual dishonesty results in massive absurdity.

Under the new definitions of Atheism, we are expected to accept, with no complaints involving their logical errors, that Atheists (a) have no beliefs which need justification, (b) yet are morally, logically, and intellectually superior, and (c) have a worldview which is based on evidence and logic.

This viewpoint is achieved through the tactic of Asymmetrical Skepticism, which allows the Atheist to refuse all undesired knowledge, regardless of its logic or even its material evidence, using the “certainty” requirement. For his own position however, the Skepticism evaporates and becomes an obtuse soup of credulous acceptance of ideas which are self-evidently absurd and totally without evidence or logic in their support. This is not a problem for the Atheist. The self-evident axioms are different for Atheists, who have developed their own set of "truths" in the vacuum left by the death of absolute First Principles. They presuppose that their innate and tautological personal correctness makes their every thought logical with no need for the standards of disciplined logic. The design of morality locally and under their own moral authority allows them to be completely moral at all times and in all situations, no matter what they do. They can and will decide what sort of evidence each party in a discussion is required to present (HINT: it’s not themselves). They can and will decide where “reality” stops, and it is not a rational conclusion, it is an ideological, Philosophical Materialist decision which requires no evidence to back it up.

And they are never, ever, skeptical of their own mental processes or conclusions.

Having adopted the Nietzschean Asymmetrical Skepticism, these Atheists have inadvertently (or maybe not) engaged reality from the Anti-Rational standpoint. And because Anti-Rationalism, when applied to logical assertions, is indiscernible from insanity, discussions with the anti-rational becomes rife with logical failures, failures which the anti-rational don’t care one whit about, because they don't apply under Anti-Rationalism. Logic and Anti-rationalism are like matter and anti-matter in that they cannot coexist non-destructively.

This is where honesty comes into play. Honesty has to be measured against a standard. The standard for honesty is consistency in a person’s behavior as measured against the person’s stated worldview standards. It presumes that a person has a set of First Principles which are consistent with reality, meaning that they are not internally contradictory, or otherwise illogical or irrational.

With Anti-Rationalists, there is no admitted position, certainly no consistent position, against which to measure the Anti-Rationalist’s behavior – except to observe, yes, that behavior is not rational, so it fits the Anti-Rationalist worldview.

But under traditional Rationalist understandings of honesty, irrational behavior in the pursuit of worldviews which are merely convenient is not honest; it is contrived out of logical fallacies which the protagonist cannot and will not defend. Persistent irrationality equates to intellectual dishonesty, when viewed under Rationalism.

Dishonesty also is apparent when there is a disparate application of rules, insisting on impossible rules for the opposition while allowing no rules for oneself. Requiring material proof for the existence of a non-material entity (the infamous Atheist Category Error) on the one hand, while accepting no requirements for providing evidence or logic for the Atheist position (by using the Orwellian tactic of changing the definition of the position as required to attempt to avoid responsibility) are blatant intellectual dishonesties and rational failures, at least when viewed under Rationalist principles. Under Anti-Rationalism, they must seem just fine.

Under Nietzsche’s Asymmetrical Skepticism, it was deemed rational to eliminate the foundations of rational thought and thus become an Anti-Rationalist. The obvious internal contradiction was acceptable, because there no longer existed any Principle of Non-Contradiction; that principle was lost to Asymmetrical Skepticism. Coherence was/is no longer a requirement for proper thinking, and is used only when convenient. Otherwise, Anti-Coherence prevails in Anti-Rationalism. In fact Anti-Coherence is a proper tactic in the ascent of those engaged in the Will To Power; Nietzsche’s disciple, Saul Alinsky, attested to that, half a century after Nietzsche’s death, a death only after a final decade of insanity and irrationality. Again, it turns out that Anti-Rationality when taken seriously is indiscernible from insanity.

And that is the intellectual state of the casual internet Atheist. He is caught declaring that his Anti-Rational assertions are, in fact, rational, and further he has no burden to show any logic or evidence in their support, nor need he admit to the internal contradiction as a failure. If the Anti-Rational Atheist actually believes that, then he behaving according to his worldview, and is irrational by definition. If he doesn’t believe that, then he is maximally dishonest and is using it as an excuse, an intellectual dodge. Either way, his arguments are failures when judged under Rationalist principles of disciplined logical analysis. Further, the Atheist’s objection – just more denialism, actually - to that failure is inconsequential, being only an artifact of his Anti-Rational affliction. In fact, the Atheist’s objection is absurd, a concept that is only meaningful under Rationalism.

The Atheist claim to be based on logic and evidence is false, and demonstrably so. Under the new Anti-Rationalist push to deny the need to even argue their position, they tacitly admit to the falsity of that position. They have, in essence, defaulted the high ground of rationality, logic and evidence to the Rationalists, who are not Atheists.

Why I Am Not A Philosopher

”Philosophy is concerned with two matters: soluble questions that are trivial, and crucial questions that are insoluble”

Stefan Kanfer; quoted in Martin Gardner, “The Whys Of A Philosophical Scrivener”

The right hand banner at Massimo Piggliucci’s blog quotes the Marquis de Condorcet and Noam Chomsky, both of whom claim that the responsibility of public intellectuals is to reveal the institutional lies and prejudices:

” It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies.”

Thus does Piggliucci assume the mantle of Public Intellectual, and the presupposed responsibility attached to it.

How does one achieve the vaunted title of intellectual, anyway? There is no college regimen that produces intellectuals after studying intellectualism. There is no award that I know of which promotes a person from herdmate to intellectual elite. There is no guild or union for journeyman intellectuals, no licensing requirement, no on-the-job training for apprentice intellectuals preparing to certify as Master Intellectual.

Thomas Sowell declares that “Intellectual”, especially “Public Intellectual”, is a job name. These are to be strictly differentiated from people who use their intellect. Public Intellectuals typically are people who stay in school much longer than almost everybody else. Many never ever leave school their entire professional life. This, they presume, gives them wisdom. And the wisdom attained through constant schooling by other permanent school dwellers is thought to be superior to any wisdom attained in the outside world. Such superior wisdom, of course, is a characteristic of eliteness. Hence the urgent responsibility to dispense wisdom to the less wise.

The same goes for Philosopher. “Philosopher” is a job name, like doctor, engineer, produce manager at the grocery store, Mary Kay salesman. It is a profession. And these people also are to be strictly differentiated from people who have philosophies, which is everyone else in the world.

As a profession, Philosopher has several requirements and limitations.

It cannot accept the norms and mores of the current society, otherwise there is no path to eliteness.

It cannot accept any objective basis for irrefutable truth, or else its job is done and unemployment looms.

It must, however, supply derived subjective truths as rational, despite the lack of any firm basis for rationality due to the lack of objective truth.

Its product is words, and its success depends on selling those words. The sale of its words is enhanced by its controversy, both in erratic thought and erratic personal habits. Some claim that the more obscure the words, the higher the quality of the philosophical product.

Controversy in thought comes directly from condemnation of popular culture and the populace in general, including arrogations of the need for populace control that is necessitated due to the errors and stupidity of the populace.

Controversy in thought comes directly from denying absolutes, then declaring new absolutes which are morally imperative and binding. After which detractors are attacked with Ad Hominems and public cursings in gutter-speak. If you think this is an exaggeration, you need to get to know Dennett and Chomsky better.

This is the Dennett-Chomsky-esqe philosopher job description. One which attacks unreasoningly, places blame before data is in, verbally crucifies those who disagree, declares a demographic to be evil against all evidence to the contrary. One which uses the job description as the basis for truth, as if a title imbues every thought with the power of Truth. One which first chooses a “truth”, then vigorously searches out rationalizations to support it, even if those rationalizations must be meticulously fabricated out of thin air.

The professional Philosopher bears no resemblance to those of a philosophical persuasion, those who wish for accuracy, validity and truth, as well as an intellectual basis for thinking that those things might exist.

Professional Philosophers are no longer formed by introspection: in fact the value of introspection is denied outright as error-prone subjective delusion. Nor are they formed by any searching for first principles, which also are denied outright. Professional Philosophers are hired for their belief in, and ability to sell, preconceived and approved agendas. In fact, Professional Philosophers and Modern Skeptics travel in herds, or at least gaggles, all producing and selling the exact same product.

In short, Professional Philosophers are salesmen. They sell books. They sell universities. They sell worldviews. Primarily they sell Philosophical Materialism, Atheism and relativism.

What they sell doesn’t matter for my purposes here. It suffices to observe that selling a product requires taking a firm and unshakably positive position on the value and validity of that product. It becomes irrelevant whether the product actually has those qualities: the sales pitch is leveraged toward sales, not truth.

The victim in this is intellectual integrity and the search for truth - intellectual integrity because the buyer no longer has any need to think beyond the massive oversimplification which he buys, and the search for truth because the search is over: “truth”, however paradoxical, is prepackaged to sell easily. But wait, you also get eliteness, too!

In a sense, I am selling something too, although not for personal gain, and certainly not the canned product which the Professional Philosophers are now selling. What I pitch here is a need for individual intellectual accuracy in the search for validity in a worldview. This is an intellectual habit, one of personal inspection and introspection; one of finding those principles that are basic to rationality; those that underlie logic; those that, if false, would change the entire nature of the universe, and can be known to valid because of that non-falsification. It is a habit of personal intellectual integrity regardless of whether it is congruent with anyone’s packaged philosophical product.

And high on the list, it is an intellectual habit that does not deny any validity a priori and without scrutiny, because to do so is to live under a dogma.

Upon those incorrigibly valid intellectual principles, both a process for determining validity, and a worldview based on valid principles can be derived.

This is not Professional Philosophy, however. In fact, it seems to go against the professional job holders in Philosophical positions. Nonetheless, those of the original philosophical bent usually go against the intellectual journeymen of their time anyway; they are radically individualist in their search mechanisms, in their demand for validity, in their rigid intellectual integrity.

I aspire to the latter over the former, which is why I am not a Philosopher.

Positive Skepticism: A Moral Duty?

What is Positive Skepticism anyway? PZ endorses "Affirmative Atheism", a meaningless but happy phrase; I guess Positive Skepticism is a similar camouflage gesture of benignness for what in actuality is a generally negative mindset. Massimo thinks that Skepticism can be sold as a valiant pursuit to save the mentally indigent from themselves. He has written a paper for Skeptical Enquirer, endorsing (whaddaya know) Skepticism as a moral duty.

But Massimo cops out early on the first issue: confusion of Moral Skepticism (my term for his ethic) with cynicism: If you’re not for it, you are anti-intellectual. That’s the answer: you are challenged. Yet cynicism is not the real question. Massimo charges on:

The second question is, "why is Skepticism a moral duty, especially if there are no morals and no Truth with a capital T?"

Massimo offers these answers:

1. Gullibility kills: AIDs is rampant in Africa due to gullibility of African officials; vaccine concerns.

2. If gullibility doesn’t kill, it enables swindlers: Mediums threaten mental health.

3. Engaging Huxley: Skeptics are ethically bound to seek truth (admittedly with a small t) and tell others about it.

4. Ethical Duty: show reality to others (example: drugs are an escape, not an answer.)

Preliminary observation: This would be more convincing if Skeptics actually investigated things rather than condemning them early and often. Glaring example: the shrieking condemnation of James "The Amazing" Randi after he confessed to skepticism of anthropogenic global warming as crisis fodder: he was not engaged as an intellect, he was condemned roundly and loudly as a traitor, a defector, an infidel, charges to which he meekly submitted. He had stepped outside the Skeptic's dogma and had given an actual thought to reality: that was not tolerated in Skeptic circles.

But let’s take a look at the actual facts concerning AIDs in Africa, Massimo's Point #1. Every attempt to promote sexual fidelity and personal responsibility in the behaviors of Africans has been ridiculed and defeated, replaced with the idea that it is our responsibility to provide disease protection for the profligate behavior of the citizens of Africa. [Never mind evidence that AIDs came from Africa in the first place, due to profligate interspecies sexual behavior.] Condoms and vaccines are the accepted answers, not personal self-control or modification of hazardous personal behaviors. The actual gullibility is politically invested by the Leftist influence: random sex is a right without accompanying responsibilities.

And what about the hazards of vaccines? Apparently some vaccines do still contain mercury in the form of thimerisol, a preservative. Even the CDC admits to a “slight” hazard due to mercury poisoning, declaring it a smaller hazard than not vaccinating. Smaller? How much? Hard to say.

Here’s an anecdote about mercury that happened this month where I live. A child brought a vial of mercury to school. The vial was not opened, but the school was closed down for days until a government sanctioned haz-mat cleanup of the school was performed. No mercury was found, before or after the clean-up, which cost bundles. Yet mercury is injected into children with the many vaccines they must have. The ethical issues here are obvious, but are denied in favor of government control of individual lives.

The hysteria over mercury is government driven. As a child I had access to mercury (liquid silver) which I played with, coating silver dimes with it to make them incredibly slick and shiny. Like DDT, mercury-fear is a panic created out of just not too much reality. In fact, the new curly fluorescent lights mandated by the government create mercury spills every time one is broken – and several have broken at my place. The government seems not concerned with that.

[You might be tempted to attribute my logic to mercury exposure, but I think I can defend my positions using actual remaining brain cells…]

Massimo’s Point 2: Mediums prey on the gullible. This is true; no argument here, if that’s where Skeptical Morality is focused and ends. But it is not.

Point 3: Skeptics are bound to pursue truth, small t. This is an exercise in absurdity; here’s why. If there is no Truth with a capital T, as Massimo claims, then any claims that are made are contingent. Those claims are contingent on things that are known and more importantly on things that are not known. In other words, truth with a small t is not valid in any special way other than in the mind of the Skeptic. Yet the Skeptic is convinced of the validity of his opinion to the degree that he calls it truth with a small t.

There is no such thing as truth with a small t; there is Truth and there is Fallacy. Either a proposition is True or it is Not True: False. The concept of truth with a small t is an explicit denial of the Principle of Non-Contradiction, and the Principle of the Excluded Middle. It is a position statement for multiple, relative logics (aka “fuzzy logic”). This was shown conclusively, mathematically by George Boole, who will never be mentioned by Skeptics.

Point 4: Here’s where Skeptics go completely wrong, as if they could go further than Fuzzy Logic. They claim that their opinions define reality. Now Massimo is correct about the need to redirect budding drug addicts. But that of course is not the point behind Skepticism. Skepticism with a capital S is a Materialist (capital M) belief system, one which always and ultimately devolves to Atheism as based on the truncated reality of material-only existence. It is this part of reality limitation that Skeptics want to foist upon the masses, those “anti-intellectuals” who so independently understand that reality goes beyond the blinkered reality being sold by Skeptics.

And there is the real point. Skepticism with a capital S is a sales job. It’s product is Philosophical Materialism and Atheism. It is a frangible philosophy with no structural support from logic other than outright denial. It has to be sold, and here Massimo tries a sales job using a phony “moral” imperative for Skeptics.

A moral duty? In a philosophy of anti-morality, and zero Truth with a capital T? In a reality of physical existence only? What better example of non-coherence could one ask for?

Massimo Fixes Democracy

Massimo Pigliucci is not just an Atheist, he is also a Leftist so far over that he cannot even see that there is another side to the discussion. He has taken on the “American democracy is rotting” problem from a fairly predictable vantage point – except that this time I actually agree with a couple of things he says. Well, almost on one, anyway.

Massimo lists eight basic issues, their cause and solution. But he numbers just the first 5.

1. Corporations are not individuals and shouldn’t be treated like they are. He is particularly incensed at Republicans in the Supreme Court for this travesty.

Massimo seems to forget that news media are all corporations, and have long been so. He seems to have confused this issue with another one, lobbying. I seriously doubt that he would support not taxing corporations on their incomes just like they are individuals. Denying corporations the right to defend the issues surrounding their existence and their investors sounds like a typical generic Leftist attack on the generic “hated corporations”. Corporations are not lifeless; they are composed of groups of individuals, just as are unions and newspapers and television media – which also benefited from this Supreme Court decision.

2. Lobbying is bribery. All non-individual petitions to the government should be stopped.

Well, that should certainly put the hurt on the environmentalists, unions, rights groups, George Soros and his blizzard of shell groups, etc. Well, of course the rich individuals could spend their lives petitioning. And the lawyers would certainly be glad to sue in their behalf, over and over. And others could chip in for the effort, say corporations, unions, etc.

3. The filibuster is an idiotic and undemocratic tool.

Except a short while ago, when the minority Democrats loved it to death! And vowed their lives and fortunes to protect it. It’s sort of like free speech and dissent; they love it when they're in the minority and hate it when they're the majority. Well, soon enough they will love it again.

4. Two Senators per state is “completely absurd” and an insult to Democracy. Why should Wyoming get the same number of senators as does NY (Massimo’s home state)?

Well, that’s exactly why the House of Representatives exists, Massimo. Maybe we should eliminate the Senate altogether? That would sure help solve problem #2, and #3. (Can House members filibuster? I know they take bribes.) Wait we can solve it completely by eliminating the House of Representatives, too. OK. I'm in. No more laws. Use the ones we've got, or better yet just the Constitution.

5. Two party system: we need more parties.

Parties are created to fill a need, just like any free market. Maybe that’s why Massimo hates it. It’s not the system, it’s the public, which has been de-educated by the social engineers of the Left. The public just won’t vote for libertarians and greenies; if they would, then there would be big parties for those groups. Now if we ban ALL parties, I'm in. Just individuals, standing on their principles and records.

It’s the same market thing as Liberal radio. Liberal radio goes under because no one is listening. Conservative radio does well, so the Left wants to control it. The market should drive such things, not a bunch of Leftist elitists.

6. No personal financing for campaigns: public financing only.

Whoa. The Trial Lawyers, environmentalists, and George Soros won’t like that one – unless they can use the obvious loop hole of campaigning for issues, not for/against candidates like they already do. This one is DOA: it is meaningless in the overall scheme of reality.

7. Automatic and permanent voter registration upon reaching age.

I actually think I might agree with this, providing adequate birth certification is provided. This would help prevent voter fraud, unless the computer records get hacked and / or stuffed with fake people. But it might be just a new target for activist fraud.

Oh yes, and Republicans are “nakedly dishonest when they invoke voter fraud”.

Now that is outrageous and ignorant on its face.

8. Voting should take place over two days.

Why? Um, just …. Why?

Massimo thinks the rot he smells in his new homeland would disappear if folks would just fix numbers 1 through 5.

To me this is so superficial as to be almost laughable, if it did not come from such a person of prominence. He makes no mention of the system of entitlement that is enforced by Leftist policies of victimology, and maleducation directed from the Left, and the wild congressional spending that produces lush retirements for aging politicians as they glean corporate consulting fees as a reward for their largesse. He makes no mention of a media, corrupt and functional purely as trumpets for only the Leftist agenda. He makes no mention of open borders, hordes of illegals, and he actually claims that voter fraud is a Republican fraud.

Sometimes it appears that Massimo merely types a stream-of-consciousness post, and then doesn’t go back and think about it. At least that’s my hypothesis.

Analysis: Argument From Authority

Yesterday I posted my list of definitions and assumptions to be considered as bearing upon the question of the Argument From Authority and its validity.

Absent any criticism of the definitions and assumptions, an analysis follows. I am sure that you will feel free to critique, and then we can discuss it:

Statement of the issue:

(In opinions on topic Z) We must submit to (the opinions of ) authority (on topic Z).

First the auxiliary verb, “must”, is an imperative, expressing command, requirement, obligation, or necessity”. [Merriam-Webster, 2004]

As an imperative, it is not possible to deviate from the dictates of the principle stated, without acquiring some unstated consequence, presumably in this case, lack of intellectual respect, at a minimum. Regardless of the consequence, the statement presents a rigid, absolute requirement to be observed in argumentation. This does not refer to requirements for obtaining empirical, first order data or any other empirical activity. It is merely a tactic of argumentation.

Assumptions about us:

a) We have less knowledge/expertise than the authority.

Assumption “a)” is not provable, empirically, without serious testing. However, as a presupposition it is difficult to argue against.

b) We are unable to attain sufficient knowledge/expertise to adequately comprehend and analyze topic Z.

Assumption “b)” is an arrogation that is likely false in many cases, while true in others; this makes it a “false association fallacy”. However, this is a powerful argumentative attack on the opponent, which has the value of derailing the conversation, while denigrating the opponent’s abilities as presumed through credentialing. This has no bearing on the actual validity of the opponent’s arguments.

As an argumentation tactic, this is intended to be a show-stopper. As a logical proposition, it has no bearing whatsoever on Topic Z.

Assumptions about the authority:

a) The authority demonstrably has adequate intelligence, with training and experience in Topic Z.

This concern is valid, and easily demonstrated.

b) The authority demonstrably is intellectually honest and demonstrably capable in analytics.

This concern is valid, and not easily validated; therefore, it is a possible exception.

c) The authority is motivated solely by the pursuit of knowledge, without ulterior motivations, including but not exclusive to: messiahism, fame and fortune.

This concern is valid, and even less verifiable except by observing the long term behaviors of the “authority”, not all of which might be visible. This is definitely an exception.

d) The authority’s opinion is within the overwhelming majority opinion of others, similarly attributed. There is no credible dissent.

Here the argument of the qualification of the “majority” comes into play. If the authority in question holds any power (say peer review and ability to publish) over the definition of the composition of the “majority”, then this is definitely an exception.

e) The authority (and majority) operate within acceptable practices of open scholarship and replication under the scientific method.

This is a valid criterion.

Assumptions about the discussion:

a) The discussion is in the form of an argument, not in the form of analyzing data, data interpretation, experimental methods, etc.

The imperative cannot be considered to exist within the definition of the Scientific Method, so this statement is valid.

b) The discussion can be in the apparent form of a single premise syllogism.

Valid assumption.

Assumptions about Topic Z:

a) Topic Z is of the appearance of complexity and data acquisition which is outside the boundary of availability to the “us” in the argument.

This presumption is without merit as a general principle; it might apply in some cases, not in others. A fallacy of false association.

b) Topic Z has been described adequately by genuine and unbiased scientific method investigation. Data is scrupulously produced and maintained. Data is genuinely analyzed and not manipulated toward a conclusion. There is no authoritative doubt remaining in the topic.

This is never a presumption concerning scientific method discoveries; objective replication is always required. This is not a valid presumption for argumentation, either, unless objective replication is done.

c) All data is readily available to potential replicators; replication of data-taking (new data) can be independently taken in order to fulfill the necessity of attempting falsification.

The first part of this premise may be asserted if undeniable evidence for its validity is available.

The second part is an undeniable requirement of empiricism, and should be a requirement for valid argumentation.

Now, what do we have?

Considering that there are numerous valid qualifications concerning the application of the absolute imperative statement, then the statement cannot be absolute. Why should it be considered imperative, concerning the qualifications that must be met for it to be a valid prescription for behavior? In other words, what motivates the use of such an device in argumentation?

The device does not present information concerning the Topic. It is a fundamental attack on the opponent, with an underlying presupposition of the opponent’s non-qualifications: an Ad Hominem Abusive. In John Locke’s terms, it is intended to induce shame and retreat.


It also is intended to derail the conversation, even halt it: a Red Herring.

From Walton, "Appeal To Expert Opinion":

” Jeremy Bentham describes the qualifications for authority:

1. adequate intelligence.
2. relative probity (honesty).
3. closeness of the opinion to the subject at hand.
4. fidelity of transmission; correctness and completeness.

He also includes expertise, with the claim that the ratio of knowledge of a subject between two individuals inversely determines the need to trust the authority figure. Yet he also claims that if objective “direct evidence” is available, then the persisting appeal to authority is fallacious.

The argument is designed to leave no room for reply; it is an attack on the other’s personal ability to judge evidence; it deflects the argument from evidence into the qualifications of the authority vs those of the respondent; it is Ad Hominem: “well, you’re not an expert, are you?”; an accusation of arrogance.

Rather than an assertion of a valid evidentiary proposition regarding the subject, it is, “…more like a decisive blocking or shutting-down type of move in argumentation that blocks off the respondent’s ability to raise any further questions or meaningfully or effectively take part in attempting to support his side of the issue any further in the dialogue.” (from "Appeal To Expert Opinion"; Douglas N. Walton, referred by Martin)(emphasis added)

In terms of logic and a rational search for valid answers, the Argument from Authority seems conclusively to be at odds with that pursuit. So it cannot be a valid position to assert in that pursuit.

In terms of winning an argument by forcing the default of the opponent, the Argument from Authority seems to be effective, IFF the opponent accepts the challenge without protest. I personally do not accept the Argument From Authority Imperative/Directive as a valid challenge.

However, within any rational pursuit, the input of authorities is always a wise thing to seek, providing the conditions above are met. In some (many?) cases the opinions of experts vary to the point of direct contradiction and in some cases experts might not fulfill the qualifications required of them as stated above. In these cases other sources of information must be sought.

Comments appreciated, as always.

Welcome SMRTies!

The weareSMRT blog (SMRT = Skeptical Minds and Rational Thinkers) has referenced this blog, atheism-analyzed as a bad example of something or other, possibly conspiracy theories. I welcome all SMRTies (if this name is annoying, what should I call you?) and I hope you all will stick around for discussions of whatever pleases you. Please read ahead.

The comment linking here was to a post that connects certain issues together into a single category: conspiracy theories. This is a tendency of block-thinking groups that proclaim “skepticism” for themselves, while also condemning any skepticism outside of their own accepted laundry list, as illegitimate. This is done via denigration by association – the False or Guilt By Association Fallacy – rather than to take on the issues one at a time and evaluate them based on the evidence pro vs. con.

The presupposition underlying the charge of conspiracy theory is that such questions are illegitimate, and therefore should not be addressed, much less answered. Further, the askers of such questions are presumed to be illiterate obstructionists trying to impede a current philosophy or policy, with no evidence even possible for proof of their reckless charges. This is true in some cases, so by lumping difficult or annoying issues in with illegitimate issues, they can be dispensed with, without the pain of proof or disproof. And of course there are conspiracy theories that cannot be proved or disproved, such as the moon-landing denial. Other conspiracy theories are blatantly false such as holocaust-denial. These are without merit, and indeed do not rise to the value of being pursued.

So charging conspiracy theory against a question automatically is expected to de-legitimize and neutralize it without having to actually deal with the intricacies of the evidence and rational evaluation of the evidence.

Is asking for Obama’s birth certificate a conspiracy theory? Is it asking a question that cannot be answered? Is it asking a question that should not be asked or answered? Clearly, No and No.

For example, the term “birther” is the denigration used for those who want to see Obama’s birth certificate, a prerequisite for his holding the office of President of the United States, under the U. S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1. The information is available, it just needs to be released; it is valuable, because it either validates or invalidates a presidency. True skeptics would be interested in the evidence pro and con, for allowing release of that document, because if the document indicates that the Constitutional requirements are not met, then everything Obama does during his illegal seating will be nullified in the future.

Here is the evidence as is currently available:

a) There was, for a brief time, an internet posting of the Hawaii document that points to the existence of a “live birth” declaration, which is not the same as a “birth certification” and which can be applied to foreign birth as well as domestic.

b) There was, for a brief time, a forged document that was presented as the birth document itself; this was a poor job of photoshopping the name, “Barack Hussein Obama” onto a form – but the spaces between the letters and the name contained a backgound that was different from the background of the form: a clear forgery.

c) There was, for a time, another forgery in the form of a birth document from Kenya. There remains no birth document that has been presented in support of Obama’s claim to the presidency under the U. S. Constitution.

Wishing to see this document is unfairly labeled by some dogmatists – not necessarily SMRTies - as first, anti-Obama; second, as racist; third as un-American; and fourth as illegitimate conspiracy theory. This series of Ad Hominem labels ignores both minority group members who want to see the document, and Obama well-wishers who want his agenda to succeed and not be subject to revocation on grounds of fraudulent occupation of the office.

Now, assuming that all this is unconvincing to the SMRTies, then there must be some other evidence regarding the concealment of Obama’s birth documents that is not revealed in the above evidence yet is available to SMRTies, and if so, I certainly hope that the SMRTies will reveal the evidence that has convinced them to congeal into such a dogmatic position of ignoring and/or delegitimizing the subject.

I look forward to discussing this and anything else of interest to the SMRT skeptics.

The Amazing Randi Loses His Skeptic Credentials

It’s a cold, cold day in Randi-Land. You just can’t be a Skeptic and be skeptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming. James Randi is finding this out the hard way. He admitted to skepticism that global warming is human caused, and that skepticism lost him his credentials as a Skeptic.

A lengthy article by Massimo Pigliucci takes Randi’s credentials away. Membership in the Skeptic’s Union requires certain discipline, which includes NOT being skeptical of certain untouchable subjects. AGW is one of those.

Massimo sorts through Randi’s thoughts and predictably finds a number of fallacies. (Note 1)

First Randi refers to the 32,000 signatures of science types that disagree with AGW. This is of course the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority, but Massimo goes to the fact that "only" 9,000 signatories have PhD’s, and then probably not in climatology, thus one-upping Randi's fallacy usage by requiring higher, more powerful authorities than Randi gave. It's the Battle of the Authorities.

Next Randi claims that scientists have made mistakes before (a premise), which Massimo takes as a conclusion that climate science must therefore be wrong… wherein Massimo has jumped to a false conclusion, accusing Randi of something he did not say.

Randi then claims that there are very many variables in climate; And Massimo jumps to the false conclusion that that means that climate investigation should stop. Again accusing Randi of something he did not say, although he does say that AGW is detracting from other, better pursuits.

Then Randi claims that humans are tough and adaptable and can survive global warming: "Humans will continue to infest Earth because we're smart." This incenses Massimo, who asks, humans aren’t smart enough to model climate, but they are smart enough to survive the climate change? He concludes that this is a massive contradiction (even though many animals have survived climate change without having the ability to model it – which seems fairly obvious).

And Massimo sums up:

” But the real [sic] damning part of Randi’s essay comes when he says: “I strongly suspect that The Petition Project may be valid. I base this on my admittedly rudimentary knowledge of the facts about planet Earth. ... this my amateur opinion, based on probably insufficient data.” This is essentially saying that although Randi has no expertise whatsoever in a complex scientific field, together with very scant information on the specifics of the problem, he nonetheless “suspects” that the overwhelming majority of (PhD-holding) practitioners in that field have made a colossal mistake. So are we supposed to take his position seriously on authority alone (another logical fallacy)? And where does that authority come from? His undoubted ability to expose real nonsense like hand surgery?

It never ceases to amuse me when Leftist – Atheo - scientismists use the very fallacies that they condemn. For Massimo, “the overwhelming majority of (PhD-holding) practitioners in that field” cannot have made a mistake; they are the authorities to which he appeals, in a huge Appeal to Authority Fallacy, in defense of a position in which he, himself, has no expertise, and in fact offers no other defense than that. Amazing.

Next Massimo blames “big corporations” for much of the dissent. This is the same defense as the Astroturf lies of Leftists who are under stress from tea-partiers. Everyone knows that Big Corporations are evil, and therefore are the cause of all problems, right? Fits right into the argument just fine. Even though undoubtedly Randi is not on the take from Exxon, and the argument is entirely superfluous, it is at least cynical. Cynical works too.

Next, Massimo claims that science has its own skeptics – peer reviewers, right? – and that no one else should be skeptical of science. More authority reference. And with plenty of empirical evidence that peer review is tainted too, it is an odd Appeal to Potentially Corrupted Authority.

And Massimo says,

” But these same people should remember that the mantle of “skepticism” does not provide one license to shoot from the hip and express a cynical attitude about anything and anyone. When we cross that line from positive skepticism into negative cynicism we do no favors to critical thinking. Instead, we undermine the whole notion and make the public as distrustful of serious scientists as they are and should be of Deepak Chopra. The public loses, and the Chopra's of the world run laughing all the way to the bank”

To disagree with the authorities is “negative cynicism” according to Massimo, and Randi is thus compared with Deepak Chopra (but not Noam Chomsky, of course).

And finally, Massimo disallows a “clarification” issued by Randi, saying it’s just “not good enough”. Randi now claims that he just meant that global warming might not be man-made. Of course that’s not good enough, Randi.

The entire article is a huge Appeal To Authority Fallacy, which is actually used to cover for the real offense: the heresy of a (previous) member of the Elite Skeptics of the Universe Club. While Randi discusses CO2, methane, and other items of interest to AGW science, Massimo does none of that. His complaint is not with Randi's interest in complexities. Massimo's complaint is that Randi even considers that there might not be an "A" in AGW. That's illegal skepticism. Out of bounds. Foul!

Can Randi ever get his credentials back?

Note 1: The number is (1), and he, Massimo, uses the same fallacy himself, throughout: Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

“Critical Thinking” as a Materialist Fraud

I recently became aware of a YouTube video family purporting to teach “critical thinking”. This was interesting enough to me that I invested the 2 hour + download time over our frail country phone lines in order to see a 9 minute video called “Open Mindedness”, which is only one of maybe 8 or 10 “instructional” videos by someone called “QualiaSoup”.

It turns out to be a good starting video, because it clearly and in no uncertain terms spells out Qualia’s Philosophical Materialism. The entire video is dedicated to two concepts: Rule #1, one must not believe anything without evidence. Rule #2, if you don’t obey rule #1, then you will be open to believing anything and your mind will be filled with rubbish.

As might be expected, “Science” is mentioned reverentially throughout, as is the implication that science is the only critical thinking that is possible. If the evidence for a certain premise is not scientific, aka material, then one must not accept the premise but must reject it with at least an “I can’t know”.

This is reinforced with the standard references to believing in fairies, ghosts, paranormal experiences and so on: fear-mongering blatantly aimed at limiting reality to physical, material, measurable "scientific" entities.

But as we know, Truth does exist and can be known. Further, it cannot be tested physically since it is not material. And further still, science never, ever produces Truth, science produces only contingent factoids. This means that material evidence - via science - does not give us Truth and even its factoids are vaporous. And any implications to the contrary are false. This does not mean that science is false. It means that using science as a limit to reality is a philosophical error.

There are no tools presented by Qualia’s video to implement evaluation of the materialist “evidence filter” touted by Qualia, either for the actual evidence, its source, nature and validity, nor for the discernment process required for the actual screening and cognition of evidence. Nor induction with its limitations and deduction with its limitations. Nor falsification as a screen for non-material propositions. Nor axioms, their source and validation. Nor the difference between hypothesis and theory. Judging from the titles of the other video family members, I doubt that any reference to these are made anywhere in any of these videos.

These videos, based on viewing the Open Mindedness video, are not based in any principles of logic, nor the principles of rational thought, nor the apprehension and comprehension of the First Principles. They are purely philosophical, not rational. And, again judging from titles, they are purely a tool of Atheism.

But what these videos do demonstrate quite vividly is the principle that one must question EVERYTHING, especially if it is on the web. (And that includes what one finds on this blog, too). Question everything, study the principles, introspect and intuit. That will take you beyond science, and into the realm that actually contains Truth.

The pity of these videos lies in the comments section, where gratitude flows for having been given the materialist process of “critical thinking”. Those folks who believe what the videos teach now are shut out of the path to apprhending full reality, and are confined to the materialist box.

Skeptical of Science?

After reading a blog of an avowed "science skeptic" I have realized that I should make it clear that I am not, by any means, skeptical of science. On the contrary, I believe intensely in empiricism with overtones of forensics, with the caveat that they both be strictly managed and adhered to. There is no doubt in my mind, nor should there be doubt in anyone's mind, that the ability to produce 100 billion bits of reliable memory on the size of a finger nail clipping is due to empiricism and forensics in very large doses. Controlled and accurate doses. Other such achievements could be prattled on about for... well, forever almost.

No. What I am skeptical of are those who claim that science has the ability to resolve all human issues and finally, in the end, produce limitless happiness - if only all humans would reject God and accept the scientist as the being encapsulated with all possible knowledge. This is the mantra of the four intellectual frauds of the "New Atheism". It is Philosophical Materialism, not science.

Philosophical Materialism is not just logically paradoxical, it is a precursor to political disaster. It has produced the bloodshed of an estimated 250,000,000 individuals in the last 90 years alone. Yet even today there are those who not only evangelize for Materialism, they also demonize those who disagree. These people are in no way promoting science, regardless of their pseudoscientific camouflage. Because they are activists for an agenda, and their motives intellectually dishonest, they seem to be able to spout any fallacy and then be rewarded for it with roars of approval from their mass of worshipful followers. (Do any real scientists have masses of worshipful followers? What sort of science would engender such emotional devotion?)

Science, in terms of intellectual honesty, is self-regulating at least in the technology arena where validity counts. However, off in the mud and crud of "pure" science there seems no longer to be any filter to strain off the agendas. In such an atmosphere agendas have taken control, especially in the story-telling "sciences" such as humanities and evolutionary-whatever. It is the story-telling activities that should not even be called science, because there is no hope of gaining either empirical or forensic proof or finality. So the stories are allowed to bloom into phantasmagoria, yet are unquestionable because they are still called science rather than the fantasy extrapolations and speculations that they actually are.

An example occurs to me. Over on an evolution website - the URL escapes me at the moment - there is considerable attention given to the development of the internal ear as seen in a series of fossils. The claim is that the ear came from spare jaw bones. The hearing mechanism migrates from a "spare jaw bone" or maybe two, through a series of transmogrifications, finally developing into an internal ear; the fossils are conveniently lined up to demonstrate this visually.

However, if one thinks about what is present at each fossil stage, the entire hearing mechanism was always present in each of the fossils, starting with the first fossil. All that actually happened was that the size and shape of the mechanism changed with time, becoming more compact. As I recall even the membrane was likely present in the original fossil, only it was configured in a larger fashion. It is obvious that the claim of an internal ear devloping out of an unrelatied jaw bone is incorrect; in fact it is a fraud, in my opinion, driven by the need to produce evidence to fit the evolution demand. It is a blatant exercise in rationalization, which is a rational fallacy.

So this is a corruption of real science. Of this false science and its purveyors I am, indeed, skeptical. I hope to promote a healthy skepticism in any and all who value accuracy and validity. I never, ever accept "scientists say..." at its face value. No one ever should. Some "scientists" do not actually value objective, agenda-free science. They value social engineering which requires the destruction of religion.

Secularism, Again

It was recently reported that the Boy Scouts of America were denied the use of a facility within the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C., where an honors banquet had been scheduled. The Boy Scouts are frequent targets of vilification by homosexual advocates and secularists. Their offense this time kept them out of the public use of the Smithsonian's premises.

The offense? Using "under God" in the pledge of allegiance to the USA. The Smithsonian reportedly declared that such usage is "intolerant" and therefore intolerable to them (notwithstanding the obvious self-contradiction).

The secularization movement punishes all who claim an ultimate allegiance to a being that is higher than the people in the government. This was acceptable to a nation that believed that its human rights were bestowed by its Creator, and that those rights were not dependent upon a current government but existed outside and beyond that government.

But no more. The concept of Creator-derived rights is not acceptable to a nation beset with official Atheist relativist, situational ethics-of-convenience. Rights are now derived through being sufficiently annoyed to cause a lawsuit, which is presented to a sympathetic court. The government then bestows the novel right not to be annoyed in this particular fashion. Is government control of one's rights a good thing?

Situational meanings are also a feature of secularism, where "tolerance" means tolerance of only Atheism and its offshoots, and also means extreme intolerance of all other worldviews. Undoubtedly a "humanist" group or a group of "Skeptics" or "Freethinkers" would have been granted access with open arms. Such groups of philosophical materialists and anti-ecclesiast radicals would not offend anyone that the Smithsonian cares about. Only the hated theism is discriminated against. In fact such intolerance is being institutionalized as yet another court-instituted "right".

Perhaps the USA will become the Union of Secular Atheists. If so, it won't last long. Secularism is, in the end, totalitarian. It will ultimately collapse of its own paradoxes.

An Atheist Speaks.

Not long ago a remote acquaintance related an announcement that was made by his daughter, a new college student. “I have looked through the telescope at deep space and there is no God out there,” she declared. I ached for both of them, for him because he had no idea how to respond, and for her, losing track of rational thought over so simple an issue. We are not taught how to think. We are taught what to think, or at least what to remember for the test.

Rational thought is a skill that is gained by studying it. It is not gained by just thinking that you have it. It is certainly not gained by maintaining ignorance of the methods of determining validity of evidence, or what constitutes evidence. Rationality is not attained by joining up with a group (although the fantasy of “personal eliteness” is). Rationality requires work; it requires intellectual discipline; it requires true skepticism, not cult “Skepticism”. It requires studying specific techniques and processes of discrimination that are used for validating propositions that are true and invalidating those that are false.

But these things are not pursued when a worldview is at stake. The formation of a self-centered worldview actually requires that rationalization replace rationality. When the objective is more important than the logical means to obtain it, then it is not rational, it is rationalized. This is the problem for Atheists: denying authority and creating self-eliteness is more important than the process required to support it. So any process will do.

Over at the blog, rationalatheist.com , Jennifer Umbehant presents her testimony, “Why I Don’t Believe in Christianity”. She presents a list of 16 reasons. I might take them on one at a time, if I have time. For now, let’s consider her summary statement.

The following statement is the conclusion of her list of reasons “not to believe in Christianity.” These paragraphs deserve comment:


“I could go on and on. But I'll try to sum it up a little: The first and foremost reason I am an atheist is because of my knowledge of evolution, astronomy and science in general. I can't see a world that would be "designed" like we have come about. Evolution by natural selection can explain almost everything we wonder about in the natural world here on Earth. Why would a God create a universe 13 BILLION years ago, then let the Earth form 4.5 BILLION years ago, just to have a religion that would FINALLY worship him only 2000 years ago? It doesn't make sense.

”Evolution can explain almost anything we wonder about here in the natural world. Why is our DNA almost 99% the same as chimps? Because of evolution. Why do we need sleep? It seems a designer could have formed us without that need, but evolution can say we need sleep to conserve energy. Why do we have appendixes that are useless? Why would God design us with useless organs? Evolution can tell us that these organs could have had a purpose in the past, but don't anymore. Why do chickens have teeth when they are in their embryonic forms? Why would a God form a chicken "in the womb" with teeth that get re-absorbed back into the body later? Evolution has an answer.

”Turning away from Christianity and my earlier beliefs took YEARS. But I've really thought it through. What I was taught and what I have read in the Bible was not sufficient enough to answer my doubts and provide me with a rational reason for believing in a god.”
http://www.rationalatheist.com/Articles/christianity_dont.html

Her first statement reveals her scientism:

“The first and foremost reason I am an atheist is because of my knowledge of evolution, astronomy and science in general.”

Knowledge of evolution, astronomy and science is not enough to make a decision on non-material entities. What is speaking here is not evolution, astronomy, and science, it is a conviction for philosophical materialism, a patently false and easily falsifiable philosophy.

Knowledge of material manifestations has no bearing whatsoever on non-material manifestations. While this might seem to be a rookie mistake, it is so common that it needs to be the poster-child for the non-rational, rationalization syndrome. Looking for the non-material within the exclusively material domain is blatantly not rational.

Viewing the universe from a human point of view, in order to make sense of it from a deity’s point of view, is without merit. It does not disprove a deity to say that “I don’t comprehend or make sense of the creation”. In fact, as most atheists will admit, denial of a negative is not proof of a negative. Negatives cannot be proven. (Hence the faery, unicorn, orbiting teapot, flying spaghetti monster strawmen, to be addressed independently of this).

In addition, the use of demonstrably false “science” statements reveals bias-as-fact, creating excuses rather than following evidence. For example, chickens do not have teeth in embryonic form, they have bumps on their forming beaks; attempts to manipulate DNA in order to induce chicks to grow teeth produced somewhat larger, but still microscopic, bumps, not teeth (teeth are not bumps on a bone – they are not even bone; they are unique specialized mechanisms). The appendix is now thought as a “reboot” device which enables an ill gut to be replenished with digestive bacteria after a purging illness. Chimps do not have 99% the same DNA as humans except in the carefully chosen, extremely tiny region of DNA that was selected to be explored with the expressly stated expectation of showing similarity; remaining huge areas of DNA have not been compared, but are not expected to show similarities of anywhere near that order – that’s why they weren’t tested in the first place.

And evolution, of course. The reason it can explain everything is that it is composed of story telling. It cannot be falsified, because it cannot be proven, empirically. Therefore, evolution (macro) is a metaphysical concept, not an empirical concept. (One should read Popper before delivering scientistic atheist manifestos). Evolution is historical, forensic, inductive, speculative, abductive; it is not empirical. The fact that evolution has an answer for “everything” should be a clue: if it explains contradictory (paradoxical) instances, it cannot be a valid conclusion. In fact, it is not evolution that explains everything, it is the stories made up about evolution that try to look as if they do. The fallacy is called Ad Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: “Just So Stories”.

The lack of education concerning the process of logic, rational thought, and empiricism vs. forensic abduction is clearly shown in statements like these. So it is not rationalism that brought Jennifer to atheism, it was something else, using rationalization to justify it. What it was we don’t really know. And possibly neither does she.

An Inconvenient Database

If Roger A. Pielke Sr. is a renegade, neither NOAA nor the University of Colorado nor Colorado State University seem to know about it. Dr. Pielke heads up a research group that is funded largely by NOAA, and is supported by the universities. Pielke is an independent researcher. He recently published a paper calling for volumetric measurement of oceanic temperatures, in which he points out that the oceanic surface temperatures have not shown warming for the past several years.

Since it is thermal mass that must rise in temperature in order to modify the environment, stable oceanic temperatures are indicative of no global warming, because the thermal mass of the oceans by far swamps out the thermal mass of the atmosphere, and the shallow temperature variation of the continental surfaces.

So according to Pielke, temperature variations of the entire oceanic mass must be measured before conclusions should be made. Perhaps the missing thermal energy was transmitted downward to the depths - would it affect the climate from there(?) - or more likely the missing thermal energy was re-radiated into space.

Automaton robots have been released into the South Pacific off of Australia which will measure temperatures around the Pacific and report back through Satellite links. Just released in October of 2007, there is not yet enough data from these.

In other news,

"Now there is a new paper by V. Ramanathan and Greg Carmichael to appear on March 23 in Nature Geoscience titled “Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon” [and thanks to Jos de Laat for alerting us to it!].

"The Scripps news release which announces this is titled “Black Carbon Polluition Emerges as Major Player in Global Warming”.

"The report writes that

“…. soot and other forms of black carbon could have as much as 60 percent of the current global warming effect of carbon dioxide, more than that of any greenhouse gas besides CO2″

“In the paper, Ramanathan and Carmichael integrated observed data from satellites, aircraft and surface instruments about the warming effect of black carbon and found that its forcing, or warming effect in the atmosphere, is about 0.9 watts per meter squared. That compares to estimates of between 0.2 watts per meter squared and 0.4 watts per meter squared that were agreed upon as a consensus estimate in a report released last year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a U.N.-sponsored agency that periodically synthesizes the body of climate change research. “


Solar Contribution Studied

The INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY, Thursday, February 07, reports on other contributions to the surface warming:

"...researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over the last 100 years.

Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.

Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.

Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."

Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."

Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."

In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.

A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.

"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.

The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."
The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."

But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance.


Another hit to Global Warming.

The famed "hockey stick" graph of which the alarmist crowd gets all gooshy over, is wrong, possibly a fraud. The "hockey stick" is so named because of the purported shape of the temperature curve, which was drawn as a shallow rising slope until the late 1800's where a breakpoint occurs, then escalating into a steeper curve. This was taken as proof positive that the earth is warming, and mankind is guilty.

Problem is, the inventor of the diagram, Dr. Mann, added a fudge factor which he did not disclose. He used data from just one Bristlecone pine tree, and "adjusted" his data. Recently the hockey stick has been scrutinized and found to be false.

From Technology Review:
"Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!"

Not only is there no breakpoint in real data analysis, but the temperature rise is not out of statistically reasonable bounds. In fact the data shows a downward trend for most of the second half of the 20th century, and is on a par with pre-industrial, pre-fossil-fuel temperatures. This data has been obtained by analysis of a number of Bristlecones, and without adjustments.

All this, along with charges that the IPCC cherry-picked not only data, but wrote up false summaries that did not reflect the data in the details of the report, and cherry-picked personnel by "releasing" those who disagreed.

When Global Warming can be blamed for bad hurricane years as well as no hurricane years, El Nino years and non El Nino years, droughts and floods, in fact everything and anything at all, something is wrong somewhere. In fact one report claimed Global Warming responsibility for early Spring in Florida, as well as late Spring in Texas.

The claim that Global Warming is "fact", cannot possibly be correct; there is not enough uncompromised data to verify it, and there is a significant body of data that falsifies it. As with other suspicious "sciences", "Global Warming as Fact" is a worldview, not a science.