Author Archives: David

Protected: Demarcation Draft

There is no excerpt because this is a protected post.

Posted in Uncategorized | Enter your password to view comments.

Dogma is Never Wrong. What About Science?

“There is no room for Dogma in Science” –J Robert Oppenheimer Yet, sadly, it exists. Question: What is the difference between Science and Dogma? Short Answer: The simplest and clearest way to distinguish them is that Dogma declared facts are … Continue reading

Posted in Fact Evaluation, Philosophy of Science, Rationale | Leave a comment

Requesting Definitions or Evidence Carries no Burden of Proof (and Bayesian Analysis’ Fatal Flaw)

I treasure my lifetime subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine. I’ve probably learned more about evaluating scientific claims from reading it over the past several decades than from any other single source. Recently, along with the typical torrent of terrific articles … Continue reading

Posted in Bayesian Analysis, Burden of Proof, Fact Evaluation, Logical Fallacies, Philosophy of Science, Rationale | 1 Comment

Doublespeak – Fact Manipulation

“Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur“ (meaning — incomprehensiblity is no reason for you to take an idea seriously) Doublespeak is the use of words to misleadingly hide, disguise, inflate or reverse unpleasant meaning, or meaninglessness. The Four Kinds of … Continue reading

Posted in Fact Evaluation, Logical Fallacies, Rationale | Leave a comment

Logical Fallacies Do Not Require Intent

Some people mistakenly believe that a logical fallacy requires an intent to deceive. The truth is — “The logical nature of a fallacy is independent of the intention of the party using it.” From — “The science of logic; an … Continue reading

Posted in Logical Fallacies | Leave a comment

Hyper-Certainty Principle

Hyper-Certainty Principle: “Data quality and quantity is inversely related to advocacy certainty and ferocity.” -David Dilworth, 2008 Hyper-certainty is a cognitive bias which arises when less or weaker data inspires stronger advocacy than more or stronger data. This is dramatically … Continue reading

Posted in Cognitive Bias, Philosophy of Science | Leave a comment


“Citizens of the democratic societies should undertake a course of intellectual self-defense to protect themselves from manipulation and control.” – Noam Chomsky, Necessary Illusions I would add – citizens of Tyrannical societies do not have the luxury of learning such … Continue reading

Posted in Cognitive Bias, Fact Evaluation, Philosophy of Science, Rationale | Leave a comment