Definitions by Dumu The Void

Jamesrandiomania

An extreme, dogmatic version of Jamesrandification, where James Randi’s skepticism becomes a secular religion. Adherents worship “the Randi prize” as an absolute arbiter of truth, treat Randi’s debunkings as holy texts, and dismiss any experience that cannot be verified under lab conditions as “delusion” or “fraud.” Jamesrandiomania is characterized by a refusal to engage with first‑person reports, anthropological context, or historical evidence for anomalous phenomena. Critics argue it is a form of scientistic fundamentalism: it mistakes methodological skepticism for metaphysical certainty and confuses the limits of a test with the limits of reality.

Jamesrandiomania Example: “The Jamesrandiomaniac claimed that ‘if it can’t win the million dollars, it’s fake.’ He never considered that the prize’s terms were designed to be unwinnable for spontaneous or non‑laboratory phenomena. His faith was in the challenge, not in inquiry.”

Jamesrandiomania by Dumu The Void June 6, 2026

Jamesrandification

Named after James Randi, the famous stage magician and skeptical activist who debunked psychics, faith healers, and paranormal claims, often using a $1 million prize for proof of the supernatural. Jamesrandification is the act of dismissing any paranormal or anomalous claim by demanding that it meet the standards of the Randi challenge (controlled laboratory conditions, replication, no trickery). It is a valid skeptical tool, but Jamesrandification becomes fallacious when used to reject all reports of anomalous experiences—ignoring that many phenomena are not replicable on demand (spontaneous mystical experiences, past-life memories, etc.) and that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Jamesrandification Example: “He Jamesrandified her near‑death experience by demanding a laboratory replication with peer review. When she explained it was a one‑off, he said ‘then it’s nothing.’ His demand was impossible, so his conclusion was preordained.”

Jamesrandification by Dumu The Void June 6, 2026

Sokalomania

An extreme version of Sokalification, where the Sokal hoax becomes a universal weapon to discredit any discipline outside the natural sciences. Sokalomaniacs treat the hoax as a permanent, irrefutable demonstration that philosophy, cultural studies, critical theory, and even parts of sociology are fundamentally fraudulent. They ignore that the hoax targeted specific editorial practices, not the entire field, and that decades of serious work have been produced since. Sokalomania is a form of intellectual closure: it certifies the believer in their prejudice and immunizes them from having to engage with challenging ideas. It is common in online scientism and anti‑postmodernism circles.

Sokalomania Example: “The Sokalomaniac declared that ‘postmodernism is refuted’ and linked to the 1996 hoax. He was unaware that most of the thinkers he dismissed had never been addressed by Sokal. His certainty was inversely related to his knowledge.”

Sokalomania by Dumu The Void June 6, 2026

Sokalification

Named after physicist Alan Sokal’s famous hoax (1996), in which he submitted a deliberately nonsensical paper to a humanities journal to expose what he saw as intellectual laxity. Sokalification is the act of using a single hoax or isolated case of fraud to dismiss an entire field, discipline, or mode of inquiry. For example, citing the Sokal hoax to claim that all social constructivism, postmodernism, or qualitative research is “nonsense.” Sokalification is a form of hasty generalization: one fake paper “proves” that an entire field is worthless. Critics argue it is an anti‑intellectual shortcut that avoids engaging with actual arguments.

Sokalification Example: “He Sokalified the entire sociology department by saying ‘remember Sokal? Your whole field is a joke.’ He had never read a single book on social theory, but the hoax was enough for him.”

Sokalification by Dumu The Void June 6, 2026

Kumaréomania

A neurocentric and hyper‑skeptical extension of Kumaréfication, where all spiritual experiences, mystical insights, and religious feelings are explained as brain dysfunctions (dopamine, temporal lobe activity) or cognitive biases (placebo, suggestion). Kumaréomania goes beyond the original documentary’s point—which was that even fake gurus can produce real benefits—to claim that anything spiritual is inherently a scam or a delusion. It is common in hard‑narrow scientific and neo‑atheist forums. Critics argue that Kumaréomania is self‑refuting: the belief that all spiritual experience is delusion cannot itself be verified by science, and the fervor with which it is defended mimics religious dogmatism.

Example: “The Kumaréomaniac insisted that the monk’s decades of meditation were ‘just self‑suggestion and dopamine loops.’ He had never meditated a day in his life, but he knew, with absolute certainty, that it was all nonsense.”

Kumaréomania by Dumu The Void June 6, 2026

Kumaréfication

A term derived from the documentary Kumaré (2011), in which a filmmaker posed as a fake guru to demonstrate that spiritual teachings can be effective even if the teacher is a fraud. Kumaréfication is the act of dismissing any spiritual, religious, or metaphysical practice by arguing that its efficacy is entirely due to placebo, suggestion, or the practitioner’s charisma—ignoring the possibility that the practice might have genuine value independent of the teacher’s authenticity. It is a form of reductionist debunking that uses the “fake guru” trope to invalidate entire traditions. Common in anti‑spiritual and anti‑pseudoscience communities, Kumaréfication claims that because some gurus are frauds, all spiritual practices are therefore worthless. Critics argue it commits the fallacy of composition: what applies to a subset is applied to the whole.

Kumaréfication Example: “He Kumaréfied her meditation practice by saying ‘your teacher could be a fraud like Kumaré, so your experience is just placebo.’ He ignored her measurable reduction in anxiety and improved focus.”

Kumaréfication by Dumu The Void June 6, 2026

Evidencelioning

A variant of sourcelioning and prooflioning applied to empirical evidence. The evidencelioner repeatedly asks for “just one more piece of evidence,” always finding a flaw or requesting a different type. They never accept a satisfied accumulation; they always want “something stronger,” “something more recent,” “something from another field.” Evidencelioning is used to avoid ever conceding a point, while appearing open‑minded. It exploits the fact that evidence is never perfect or complete.

Example: “He demanded evidence for climate change. She gave temperature records. He wanted ‘paleoclimate evidence.’ She gave ice cores. He wanted ‘model predictions.’ She gave GCM outputs. He wanted ‘observations of effects.’ She gave sea‑level rise. Then he asked for ‘direct causation proof.’ Evidencelioning – moving from evidence type to evidence type forever.”

Evidencelioning by Dumu The Void June 1, 2026