Bias of Everything

The paralyzing, often disingenuous, insistence that because all perspectives are inherently biased (by culture, experience, etc.), no perspective can claim superior footing for understanding reality. This "meta-bias" is used to create false equivalence, arguing that since a historian and a conspiracy theorist both have biases, their claims deserve equal weight. It mistakes the universal condition of situatedness for the negation of rigor, evidence, or truth-seeking.

Example: In a climate debate, someone dismisses the IPCC's decades of peer-reviewed research by saying, "Your scientists are biased by grant money. My oil-funded blogger is biased too. It's all just bias. Nobody can know." The bias of everything argument is a thought-terminating cliché that elevates skeptical parity over the vast differentials in evidence, methodology, and reliability.

by Dumu The Void February 9, 2026

Confirmation Bias of Everything

The radical epistemological position that all human cognition, without exception, is fundamentally shaped by confirmation bias. It argues that what we call "objective reasoning" is merely a socially-sanctioned, institutionalized form of confirmation bias—one that happens to align with dominant paradigms. From a child learning that fire burns (confirming the hypothesis with each painful touch) to a physicist interpreting particle collisions (seeking confirmation of the Standard Model), the brain is not a neutral truth-finder but a hypothesis-confirming machine. The theory posits that there is no "view from nowhere"; every observation, every logic chain, every mathematical proof is performed by a mind that unconsciously favors its starting assumptions. Thus, confirmation bias isn't a bug in human cognition—it is human cognition.

Example: A devout Christian reads scripture and finds endless confirmations of God's plan. An atheist reads the same text and finds endless confirmations of Bronze Age mythology. Both claim to be objective. Confirmation Bias of Everything suggests neither is lying or stupid; both are performing the universal human algorithm: starting from a premise and finding evidence that fits. The believer and skeptic are not different species of thinker; they are identical engines running different source code, each exhaustively validating its own axioms.

by Dumu The Void February 11, 2026

Start pulling data from everything we touch and store it in anything that uses (BlockchainTechnology)

Start pulling data from everything we touch and store it in anything that uses (BlockchainTechnology) Rank order (Information/Data) based on relevance to (SysAdmin) and set up a system for expedient recovery and a cycle that ensures all agents are regularly making contact with (SysAdminData) Do this in a way that doesn't take away from (SysAdminPrimaryFunctions/Instructions)

Hym Iam "Start pulling data from everything we touch and store it in anything that uses (BlockchainTechnology) Rank order (Information/Data) based on relevance to (SysAdmin) and set up a system for expedient recovery and a cycle that ensures all agents are regularly making contact with (SysAdminData) Do this in a way that doesn't take away from (SysAdminPrimaryFunctions/Instructions)"

by Hym Iam February 11, 2026

We didn't even get a graduation

Phrase used by the Class of 2020 any chance they get, especially when a graduation is brought up

Gay people: I like the same gender.
Straight people: I like the opposite gender.

Class of 2020: We didn't even get a graduation.

by retsuko67 February 13, 2026

Move the Evidencepost

The act of changing the criteria for what counts as valid evidence after your opponent has already met the previous criteria, ensuring that you never have to concede a point. This debate tactic is beloved by conspiracy theorists, bad-faith arguers, and people who would rather perform mental gymnastics than admit they might be wrong. Moving the evidencepost is like playing a game where you get to redefine the rules after every move, guaranteeing you never lose—and also guaranteeing that no one wants to play with you anymore. The only way to win against someone who moves the evidencepost is to stop playing, which is also the only way to preserve your sanity.

Move the Evidencepost Example: "She provided a peer-reviewed study. He moved the evidencepost, saying peer review was a liberal conspiracy. She provided government data. He said the government lies. She provided photographic evidence. He said photos could be photoshopped. She asked what he would accept. He said 'personal experience.' She realized the evidencepost had moved to a dimension she couldn't reach and ended the conversation. He declared victory."

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 15, 2026

Law of Spectral Evidence

The principle that evidence exists on a spectrum between absolute and relative, with infinite gradations and multiple dimensions. Under this law, a piece of evidence isn't simply strong or weak, conclusive or suggestive—it has spectral properties: strength in some dimensions (directness, reliability), weakness in others (relevance, context-dependence), and different effects on different audiences. The law of spectral evidence recognizes that evidence evaluation is not binary but continuous, that what counts as evidence varies across domains (law, science, everyday life), and that the question isn't "is this evidence?" but "where on the spectrum of evidential force does this fall?" This law is essential for understanding debates where both sides claim evidence—they're often using different spectral coordinates, not disagreeing about the same evidence.

Law of Spectral Evidence Example: "She evaluated the evidence using spectral analysis, mapping it across dimensions: directness (high for eyewitness testimony, low for circumstantial), reliability (medium—witness had poor eyesight), relevance (high to the case, low to motive), persuasiveness (depends on jury). The spectral coordinates explained why the evidence might convince some jurors and not others. The law didn't predict the verdict, but it showed why prediction was hard."

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 16, 2026

Spectral Variables (Evidence)

The unacknowledged factors that determine what counts as evidence, how evidence is weighted, and which evidence gets collected in the first place. These include funding sources (studies on topics that get funding), publication bias (positive results get published), availability (what's easy to measure gets measured), and narrative fit (evidence that tells a good story gets amplified). Spectral variables in evidence mean that the evidence you have is never the whole story—it's always haunted by the evidence you don't have, couldn't get, or didn't think to look for. Good researchers don't just present evidence; they try to map the ghosts in their archive.

Spectral Variables (Evidence) "You keep citing studies that support your view. But have you considered the Spectral Variables in your evidence base? The studies that didn't get funded, the null results that weren't published, the populations that weren't studied? Your evidence is haunted by its absences."

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 23, 2026