Definitions by Dumu The Void
Frankenstein Reason Theory
A meta-theoretical framework that extends Frankenstein Logic to the broader domain of practical reason. It argues that human reasoning in real-world contexts is not governed by a single, coherent set of rational principles but is instead assembled from multiple, sometimes conflicting, heuristics, biases, values, and norms. Drawing on bounded rationality, ecological rationality, and dual-process theory, it posits that reason is “Frankensteinian” because it cobbles together evolved instincts, learned rules, social conventions, and emotional responses—none of which are logically consistent with each other. Yet this patchwork works well enough for survival and social coordination. The theory challenges the ideal of the rational actor in economics and decision theory, showing that people reason through contradictory frames (e.g., utilitarian in one choice, deontological in another) without paralysis.
Example: “Frankenstein Reason Theory explains why she used cost-benefit analysis for buying a car but a deontological rule (‘never lie’) for a white lie—reason is stitched from incompatible fabrics.”
Frankenstein Reason Theory by Dumu The Void May 26, 2026
Frankenstein Logic
The actual cognitive and social practice of using contradictory, inconsistent, or paraconsistent reasoning in everyday life, politics, law, and science. It is the lived application of Frankenstein Logic Theory. People using Frankenstein Logic do not see their beliefs as incoherent; they navigate contradictions through context-switching, compartmentalization, or weighting degrees of belief. For instance, a judge might rule that a precedent applies and does not apply in the same case, creating a nuanced exception. A voter might support both lower taxes and increased public spending. A scientist might accept two incompatible models (e.g., wave and particle) and use whichever is convenient. Frankenstein Logic is not a failure of reasoning but a feature of real-world intelligence, where consistency is traded off against adaptability.
Example: “His Frankenstein Logic allowed him to argue that the government should both ‘stay out of business’ and ‘bail out failing industries’—he switched contexts without noticing the contradiction.”
Frankenstein Logic by Dumu The Void May 26, 2026
Frankenstein Logic Theory
A theoretical framework proposing that in the empirical, practical, and social world, people do not operate according to classical Western formal logic (law of non-contradiction, excluded middle, monotonicity). Instead, they routinely adopt positions that are extremely contradictory—yet they continue to function, reason, and make decisions without psychological collapse or practical failure. The theory draws on paraconsistent logic (which tolerates contradictions without explosion) and fuzzy logic (where truth comes in degrees). It argues that classical logic is a normative ideal, not a descriptive reality. People can believe “X is good” and “X is bad” simultaneously depending on context, mood, or framing; they can hold inconsistent political views (e.g., pro-market and pro-welfare); they can act on competing values without resolving the contradiction. Frankenstein Logic Theory explains how cognitive dissonance is not always resolved but often simply managed or compartmentalized. It also accounts for how legal, political, and ethical systems evolve through contradictory precedents. The “Frankenstein” metaphor emphasizes that such logic is stitched together from incompatible parts yet lives and moves.
Example: “She simultaneously believed that immigration benefits the economy and that immigrants take jobs—Frankenstein Logic Theory explains how she held both without exploding, because practical reasoning tolerates contradictions that formal logic cannot.”
Frankenstein Logic Theory by Dumu The Void May 26, 2026
Hard-Narrow Scientism
Also known as Hard-Narrow Positivism, Hard-Narrow Neopositivism, Hard-Narrow Evidentialism, Hard-Narrow Physicalism, or Hard-Narrow Reductionism. This is a very common phenomenon in the dissemination of science on the internet and social media, characterized by the dogmatic, fundamentalist, rigid, and exclusivist use of science. Its adherents do not view science as a method open to criticism and revision, but as a closed system of absolute truths, frequently allied with neo-atheist paradigms, radical rationalism, and a militant hostility towards anything that falls outside the scope of the natural sciences or formal logic. One of its trademarks is the Formal Guillotine—a modern version of Hume's Guillotine. While Hume separated "is" and "ought to be," the Formal Guillotine violently separates formal logic, raw data, statistics, and scientific evidence from any and all social, political, cultural, historical, or constructed context. For the narrowly strict scientistic thinker, a number or an experiment speaks for itself, regardless of who produced it, under what conditions, with what interests, or within what paradigm. Any attempt to bring subjectivity, language, power, or culture into the scientific discussion is immediately labeled as "postmodernism," "relativism," "revisionism," "continental philosophy," or "epistemological whining." These terms become universal straw men to dismiss interlocutors without needing to engage with their arguments.
Another central characteristic is the extreme pathologization of dissent. Those who disagree with the strict, hard-nosed scientistic approach are not simply people with a different opinion or a different interpretation of the data; they are accused of charlatanism, deception, illusion, delusion, incurable cognitive bias, elementary logical fallacy, pseudoscience, "pseudo-scientism" (a derogatory neologism), or even of being criminal denialists. There is no room for respectful debate, epistemological uncertainty, or scientific humility. Anything that doesn't fit the reductionist, physicalist, or strict evidentialist model is treated as heresy to be exterminated with sarcasm, virtual lynching, and academic ostracism.
Hard-Narrow scientism confuses science with natural science, method with dogma, and evidence with absolute truth. It ignores that science itself is a social practice, with conventions, institutions, funding, and biases. By denying this dimension, it becomes an ideology—and one of the most dangerous, as it presents itself as reason disembodied. Its critics point out that, in trying to defend science from obscurantism, its practitioners end up reproducing an inverted obscurantism: scientific dogmatism.
Hard-Narrow scientism confuses science with natural science, method with dogma, and evidence with absolute truth. It ignores that science itself is a social practice, with conventions, institutions, funding, and biases. By denying this dimension, it becomes an ideology—and one of the most dangerous, as it presents itself as reason disembodied. Its critics point out that, in trying to defend science from obscurantism, its practitioners end up reproducing an inverted obscurantism: scientific dogmatism.
Hard-Narrow Scientism by Dumu The Void May 23, 2026
Critical Thinking Bias
A meta-cognitive bias that occurs when a person believes that, because they have studied or trained critical thinking, they are immune to biases and fallacies. Those who suffer from this bias confuse the mastery of some critical tools (identifying fallacies, evaluating evidence) with the ability to apply them to themselves honestly. The result is a form of epistemic arrogance: the person becomes hypercritical of others' arguments (pointing out supposed fallacies left and right), but uncritical of their own assumptions. This bias is endemic in online skepticism communities, in "rational debate" forums, and in people who list "critical thinking" as their primary skill on their resume. The irony: genuine critical thinking begins with self-criticism, but Critical Thinking Bias prevents exactly that – causing the person to use critical thinking as a weapon against others, not as a tool for self-examination.
Critical Thinking Bias Example: "The critical thinking coach spent an hour pointing out fallacies in his colleague's argument. When the colleague pointed out a contradiction in his own speech, he replied: 'That's not a fallacy, it's a nuance. My critical thinking is trained, yours isn't.' And he imagined himself victorious."
Critical Thinking Bias by Dumu The Void May 23, 2026
Logical Bias
A cognitive bias that consists of overestimating formal logic as a sufficient tool for discovering truth, and underestimating the role of experience, intuition, and context. Those who suffer from Logical Bias believe that any question can be resolved with valid deductive arguments, and that if a conclusion is logically coherent, it is true. In practice, logic is merely an instrument of validity (if the premises are true, the conclusion follows), but it says nothing about the truth of the premises. Logical Bias leads a person to construct flawless syllogisms from false or incomplete premises – and to defend the argument as if it were irrefutable. It is common in extreme rationalist philosophies, in online “logic” debates (where the opponent is accused of “fallacy” even when the argument is substantial), and in people who confuse the ability to win verbal debates with the ability to understand the world.
Logical Bias Example: “The debater argued: ‘Every human being is rational; you are human; therefore you are rational. Therefore, if you disagree with me, you are irrational. The argument is logically valid.’ He ignored that the premise ‘every human being is rational’ is false. Logical bias in full flight.”
Logical Bias by Dumu The Void May 23, 2026
Formal Bias
Term used as a close synonym for Formality Bias, but with an emphasis on the preference for formal representations (equations, algorithms, models) instead of qualitative or narrative descriptions. Those who suffer from Formal Bias believe that “if it’s not formalizable, it’s not serious knowledge.” This bias is common in physicists who look down on biology (for being “less formal”), in economists who reduce everything to unrealistic mathematical models, and in science communicators who only respect quantitative studies. Formal Bias leads a person to ignore complex phenomena that cannot be easily formalized (such as emotions, power relations, historical processes), treating them as “less real.” The irony: modern mathematics itself acknowledges that there are incompleteness theorems and that not everything is formalizable – but Formal Bias ignores this.
Formal Bias Example: “A sociologist presented a detailed ethnography of a community. The physicist responded: ‘That’s anecdotal. Where’s the formal model? Without equations, it’s not science.’ The sociologist tried to explain the qualitative richness, but was ignored. Formal Bias in action.”
Formal Bias by Dumu The Void May 23, 2026