Hard Problem of Controlled Studies

The inherent and often crippling limitation of the gold-standard scientific method—the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial—when applied to phenomena that are deeply subjective, context-dependent, or allegedly non-physical. The "hard problem" is that the very act of imposing strict laboratory controls can destroy or mask the effect being studied. For instance, the healing intention in energy work may require practitioner-patient rapport, or a psychic's ability might rely on a specific, non-reproducible emotional state. Insisting on sterile, repeatable conditions for everything creates a methodological catch-22: if it can't be measured under our controls, we declare it doesn't exist, but the controls themselves may be the reason it vanishes. This problem exposes the boundary of where the scientific method, brilliant for studying objective, repeatable processes, may become a Procrustean bed for studying consciousness, meaning, or anomalous human experience.

Example: "The university's parapsychology lab kept getting null results for remote viewing. The Hard Problem of Controlled Studies hit when a gifted subject quit, saying, 'You've turned a spiritual connection into a boring spreadsheet task. My 'talent' requires mystery and meaning, not you staring at a clock in a beige room.' The control was the killer."

by AbzuInExile January 31, 2026

Power Problem of Science

The critique that modern scientific institutions have, despite their ideals of objectivity, become entangled with political, economic, and social power structures. Science is used not just as a tool for understanding, but as an authority to legitimize policy, marginalize dissenting worldviews (labeling them "pseudoscience"), and enforce a specific, materialist ontology as the sole arbiter of reality. This problem highlights how the label "scientific" can be wielded as a cudgel to maintain hegemony, turning science from a method into a state-sanctioned religion where priests in lab coats define truth and morality, and heresy is called "misinformation." The purity of the scientific method becomes corrupted by its institutional role as the gatekeeper of official reality.

Example: "When the government dismissed traditional herbal knowledge as 'unscientific pseudoscience' to push patented pharmaceuticals from a donor's company, it wasn't defending truth—it was exhibiting the Power Problem of Science. The institution of science was being used as the enforcement arm of a corporate agenda, protecting market power, not pursuing knowledge."

by AbzuInExile January 31, 2026

Power Problem of Pseudoscience

The mirror image of the Power Problem of Science: the strategic use of science-mimicking language and aesthetics by ideologies, grifters, or counter-hegemonic movements to borrow the cultural authority of science for their own ends. This isn't about honest error, but about constructing a parallel, authoritarian discourse (e.g., "Do your own research," "These peer-reviewed studies prove the conspiracy") that creates an illusion of rigor to exploit fear, sell products, or build political movements. The power here is populist and anti-institutional, using the form of science to undermine trust in actual scientific consensus, creating a dangerous shadow epistemology that serves as a vehicle for other forms of power.

Example: "The wellness influencer's Power Problem of Pseudoscience was clear. She used phrases like 'quantum-tuned frequencies' and cited fake journals to sell detox patches, creating a parallel authority structure for her followers. She wasn't failing at science; she was successfully wielding the aesthetic of science as a marketing weapon to build a lucrative, anti-expertise empire."

by AbzuInExile January 31, 2026

Political Problem of Science

The inherent corruption that occurs when the institution of science is conflated with the scientific method. This is the transformation of science from a process of open, fallible inquiry into a political entity—a state-sanctioned authority that gets to definitively regulate what is considered "objective" and, by extension, "moral." The problem arises when the label "scientific" is wielded not as a descriptor of methodology, but as a cudgel of power to silence dissent, marginalize non-hegemonic worldviews (by labeling them "pseudoscience"), and enforce a single, materialist ontology as the only valid reality. In this politicized state, defending science devolves into a fundamentalist posture of declaring everything else "non-science," creating an empty, negative identity more concerned with gatekeeping authority than with understanding the world. It's when the priesthood in lab coats cares more about protecting the temple's power than pursuing messy, unpredictable truth.

Example: "When the public health agency's messaging shifted from 'here is the evolving data on masks' to 'any questioning of our mandates is anti-science pseudoscience,' they showcased the Political Problem of Science. The method—tentative, evidence-based—was replaced by the institution's need for unquestioned authority, turning a public health tool into a political loyalty test."

by AbzuInExile January 31, 2026

Political Problem of Pseudoscience

The flip side of the same coin: the use of the accusation of "pseudoscience" as a primary political weapon to dismiss and demonize ideas, not because they have been engaged with substantively, but because they challenge a dominant ideology or power structure. This problem exposes how the term is often emptied of its epistemological meaning (critiquing structural contradictions) and is instead deployed as a cheap, thought-terminating smear. By reducing all critique to the category of "not-science," the accuser avoids the harder work of defending their own ideological assumptions, using the cultural authority of science as a shield. Ironically, this reductionist discourse—which bases its entire identity on a negative definition—becomes its own form of pseudoscience, mimicking science's authority while abandoning its spirit of open scrutiny.

Example: "Dismissing all critiques of industrial agriculture as 'organic pseudoscience' without addressing the specific points about soil depletion and pesticide runoff is the Political Problem of Pseudoscience. The agribusiness lobby isn't defending scientific rigor; it's using the label to pathologize any challenge to its economic model, turning a valid debate about systems into a hollow war of epithets."

by AbzuInExile January 31, 2026

Hard Problem of Cult

The central, frustrating dilemma that arises when you accept the "Everything Is A Cult Now" premise: figuring out where to draw the line between metaphorical "cult-like" behavior and an actual, harmful cult that employs psychological control and coercion. If the mechanisms (charismatic influence, groupthink, devaluing outsiders) are everywhere, how do we distinguish a harmless "Peloton cult" from a dangerous one like NXIVM? The "Hard Problem" is that the label becomes so diluted by casual use for any passionate fandom that it loses its power to warn about genuine abuse, creating a crisis of discernment where real harm can be camouflaged.

Example: "My friend called our marathon training group a 'cult' because we have a coach and matching shirts. I hit him with the Hard Problem of Cult: 'Is our coach love-bombing new runners to isolate them from their families? Is he using confession sessions to create shame-based loyalty? No, he's just telling us to hydrate. Save the C-word for the crypto-guru who's getting followers to sign over their assets, not for our running club that sometimes talks about carb-loading too much.'"

by AbzuInExile January 31, 2026

Concept Problem of Cult

The intellectual dead-end you reach when the word "cult" expands to describe literally everything, rendering it conceptually meaningless. If every fitness program, skincare brand, political party, and hobby group is a "cult," then the term stops identifying a specific, dangerous type of social organization and just becomes a lazy synonym for "things people are really into that I don't like". This overuse is a "Concept Problem" because it destroys the word's analytical utility. We end up in pointless debates about whether "Swifties are a cult" instead of using a clear, evidence-based model (like the BITE model of authoritarian control) to identify groups that actually destroy autonomy and cause harm.

Example: "The podcast spent two hours debating if 'CrossFit is a cult.' That's the whole Concept Problem of Cult right there. Instead of applying a real framework for control, they just listed things members are passionate about. By that logic, my grandma's intense bridge club is a cult because they have a strict hierarchy, special jargon, and think all other card games are inferior. The word means nothing now except 'organized enthusiasm that seems weird to outsiders.'"

by AbzuInExile January 31, 2026