Definitions by Abzugal
Evidence Perspectivism
A philosophical framework holding that evidence is always from a perspective—that what we take as evidence depends on the theoretical frameworks, methodological commitments, and standpoints from which we approach the world. Evidence perspectivism rejects the idea of perspective-free evidence. What counts as evidence for a biologist differs from what counts for an economist; what counts as evidence from a patient's perspective differs from what counts from a clinician's. Perspectivism doesn't make evidence subjective; it recognizes that each perspective reveals genuine aspects of reality, and that no perspective exhausts the whole. It demands that we be explicit about the perspectives from which evidence is gathered and interpreted.
Example: "His evidence perspectivism meant he recognized that the evidence from randomized trials and the evidence from patient testimony were both real—each from a different perspective, each revealing something the other missed."
Evidence Perspectivism by Abzugal March 22, 2026
Evidence Multicontextualism
A philosophical framework holding that evidence is shaped by multiple, irreducible contexts—scientific, social, cultural, historical, practical—that interact to constitute what counts as evidence. Evidence multicontextualism insists that no single context exhausts the meaning of evidence and that understanding evidence requires mapping how contexts interrelate. A clinical trial's evidence is shaped by the context of trial design, the context of funding, the context of participant selection, the context of statistical interpretation, and the context of clinical practice—all of which interact. This framework demands that we resist reductionist approaches to evidence and embrace the complexity of how evidence is produced, interpreted, and applied across interacting contexts.
Example: "Her evidence multicontextualism meant she studied medical evidence not just through clinical trials, but also through patient experience, practitioner knowledge, institutional constraints, and cultural beliefs—all of which shaped what counted as evidence."
Evidence Multicontextualism by Abzugal March 22, 2026
Evidence Contextualism
A philosophical framework holding that evidence is context-dependent—that what counts as evidence, how it is interpreted, and what conclusions it supports varies with the context of inquiry, the domain of application, and the purposes of the investigation. Evidence contextualism challenges the view of evidence as context-free facts that speak for themselves. A piece of evidence that counts as compelling in a physics lab may be irrelevant in a courtroom; data that supports a conclusion in one context may be ambiguous in another. Contextualism doesn't make evidence subjective; it recognizes that evidence is always evidence-in-context, and that ignoring context leads to misinterpretation. It demands that we attend to the conditions that make evidence meaningful and resist the temptation to treat evidence as universally applicable across contexts.
Example: "His evidence contextualism meant he didn't assume that clinical trial results would directly apply to community practice. The evidence was real, but context changed what it meant."
Evidence Contextualism by Abzugal March 22, 2026
Evidence-Based Charlatanism
A deceptive practice where individuals invoke "evidence-based" as a rhetorical shield to legitimize their positions while ignoring, misrepresenting, or selectively applying evidence. The evidence-based charlatan uses the language of empiricism to claim authority, but their engagement with evidence is superficial—citing studies that support their view while ignoring contradictory findings, demanding impossible standards of evidence from opponents, and treating their own preferred evidence as self-evidently correct. They weaponize "evidence-based" to shut down debate, positioning themselves as the rational party and all alternatives as unscientific. The charlatanism lies in using the idea of evidence to avoid the actual work of evidence evaluation, turning a valuable methodological commitment into a performative identity.
Example: "He demanded randomized controlled trials for his opponents' claims while citing blog posts as evidence for his own. Evidence-Based Charlatanism: using the language of rigor to avoid the practice of it."
Evidence-Based Charlatanism by Abzugal March 22, 2026
Scientific Charlatanism
A deceptive practice common in online science communication where individuals present themselves as authoritative defenders of science while engaging in shallow, misleading, or self-serving rhetoric. The scientific charlatan mimics the language of scientific rigor—demanding evidence, citing studies, invoking the scientific method—while using these tools to dismiss genuine inquiry, protect orthodoxy, or build personal brand. They are distinguished from legitimate science communicators by their lack of epistemic humility, their willingness to misrepresent uncertainty as certainty, their tendency to weaponize "science says" against any dissent, and their prioritization of performance over understanding. Scientific charlatanism flourishes in attention-driven media environments where confidence matters more than accuracy, and where being "pro-science" can become an identity unmoored from actual scientific practice.
Example: "He had no scientific training, but his YouTube channel was all 'science says' and mocking believers. Scientific Charlatanism: performing rigor without practicing it, and calling it education."
Scientific Charlatanism by Abzugal March 22, 2026
Pseudoscience Slippery Slope
A specific form of scientific slippery slope where any non-scientific belief, no matter how innocuous or personally held, is treated as inevitably leading to extremely harmful practices. The pseudoscience slippery slope assumes that belief in astrology leads to rejection of astronomy; that practicing meditation means you'll refuse medical treatment; that exploring alternative spirituality leads to cult membership. The fallacy erases the distinction between worldview and action, between personal belief and public harm, between harmless eccentricity and dangerous pseudoscience. It functions to police the boundaries of acceptable belief, making any deviation from scientific orthodoxy seem threatening. The result is a culture where people hide legitimate spiritual or philosophical explorations for fear of being labeled dangerous, and where genuine epistemic diversity is suppressed in favor of enforced consensus.
Example: "She mentioned enjoying tarot cards for self-reflection, and he warned her that she was on the path to rejecting all medicine. Pseudoscience Slippery Slope: a harmless hobby treated as the first step to disaster."
Pseudoscience Slippery Slope by Abzugal March 22, 2026
Scientific Slippery Slope
A rhetorical fallacy common in online science communication, skeptic communities, and anti-pseudoscience circles where any expression of doubt, criticism of scientific institutions, or engagement with non-scientific beliefs is treated as the first step down an inevitable path toward severe anti-science and harmful practices. The scientific slippery slope assumes that questioning a study means you reject all science; that being open to alternative medicine means you'll abandon evidence-based treatment; that entertaining a spiritual belief means you're one step from vaccine denial. In reality, most people hold complex, contextual views that don't slide into extremism. The fallacy functions as a thought-terminating cliché, allowing debunkers to dismiss nuance without engagement. It protects scientific orthodoxy by making any deviation seem dangerous, conflating skepticism of particular claims with rejection of science itself, and turning genuine epistemic humility into a perceived threat.
Example: "He suggested that peer review might have flaws, and they immediately accused him of being anti-science. Scientific Slippery Slope: a reasonable critique was treated as the first step toward burning textbooks."
Scientific Slippery Slope by Abzugal March 22, 2026