Pansexual (abscess addiction based stimulant)

What I call homo-sapiens who are addicted to abscesses.

Person 1: Are you addicted to abscesses?
Person 2: Yes.
Person 1: Pansexual (abscess addiction based stimulant)

by LeSouffleDeVersailles January 21, 2025

Law of Spectral Biases

The principle that biases exist on a spectrum between absolute and relative, with infinite gradations and multiple dimensions. Under this law, no perspective is simply biased or unbiased—each occupies a position in spectral space defined by its sources of distortion, its areas of clarity, its cultural situatedness, its epistemic vices and virtues. The law of spectral biases recognizes that bias is not binary but continuous, that we can be more or less biased in different dimensions, and that the goal is not elimination (impossible) but awareness and mitigation. This law is the foundation of epistemic humility, the recognition that your perspective is always partial, always situated, always capable of improvement.

Law of Spectral Biases Example: "She analyzed her own thinking using spectral biases, mapping it across dimensions: cultural assumptions (present but identified), emotional influences (acknowledged), cognitive shortcuts (working on them), institutional pressures (naming them). The spectral coordinates showed where her bias was most distorting and where it was manageable. She didn't become unbiased—no one does—but she became more aware, which is the point."

by Abzugal February 16, 2026

Critical Thinking Biases

The meta-collection of cognitive biases that specifically distort, undermine, or corrupt the practice of critical thinking itself. These are not ordinary biases that affect any judgment, but biases that attack the very tools we use to think clearly about bias. They include the bias to consider one's own thinking "critical" while dismissing others' as biased, the bias to apply skeptical standards asymmetrically (strictly to views one dislikes, leniently to views one favors), the bias to treat "critical thinking" as a label one claims rather than a practice one performs, and the bias to mistake cynicism for critique. Critical Thinking Biases are what happens when people weaponize the language of reason against reason itself—using "just asking questions" to spread doubt, demanding "evidence" only from opponents, treating one's own unexamined assumptions as "first principles." They are the pathologies of the proudly rational.

Example: "He thought he was immune to bias because he was a 'critical thinker'—but his Critical Thinking Biases meant he applied skepticism only to views he already distrusted, never to his own."

by Dumu The Void March 13, 2026

Scientific Literacy Biases

The collection of biases that arise from having some scientific literacy without sufficient depth, nuance, or contextual understanding—enough knowledge to sound authoritative, not enough to actually evaluate claims properly. Scientific Literacy Biases include: overgeneralizing from one study to universal truth, mistaking introductory textbook knowledge for expertise, treating simplified explanations as complete accounts, assuming one's lay understanding trumps expert consensus, and using scientific-sounding language to lend credibility to unscientific claims. These biases are particularly dangerous because they look like genuine scientific literacy—the person can cite studies, use terminology, reference concepts—but the literacy is just deep enough to be confidently wrong.

Scientific Literacy Biases Example: "He'd read a pop-science book on neuroscience and now thought he could dismiss decades of clinical psychology—classic Scientific Literacy Bias, enough knowledge to be dangerous, not enough to know he was dangerous."

by Dumu The Void March 13, 2026

Scientific Method Biases

The collection of biases that distort how the scientific method is understood, applied, and evaluated—not biases within science, but biases about the scientific method itself. These include: treating the method as a rigid, unvarying procedure rather than a flexible set of practices; assuming all sciences use identical methods; believing the method guarantees truth rather than reducing error; mistaking the idealized textbook description for the messy reality of actual scientific practice; and using "the scientific method" as a cudgel to dismiss any inquiry that doesn't match one's narrow conception of it. Scientific Method Biases are the meta-cognitive errors that prevent people from understanding how science actually works.

Scientific Method Biases Example: "He dismissed an entire field as 'unscientific' because it didn't use double-blind randomized controlled trials—his Scientific Method Bias made him mistake one field's methods for the universal template of all science."

by Dumu The Void March 13, 2026

Objective Truth Biases

The collection of biases that cluster around the concept of "objective truth"—the tendency to treat one's own perspective as uniquely objective, to assume that objectivity requires the absence of perspective rather than the rigorous examination of it, to mistake culturally-shaped standards for universal ones, and to use "objectivity" as a weapon against views one dislikes while exempting one's own. These biases include: treating quantification as inherently more objective than qualitative description; assuming that numbers don't lie (while ignoring how they're collected, interpreted, and presented); believing that one's own cultural position is the "view from nowhere"; and using "objective truth" to dismiss the legitimacy of other ways of knowing.

Example: "His Objective Truth Biases meant he thought his perspective was simply 'reality' while everyone else had 'opinions'—he didn't see his own cultural assumptions as assumptions at all."

by Dumu The Void March 13, 2026

Philosophy of Evidence-Based Orthodoxy

A branch of philosophy that examines the nature, justification, and implications of evidence-based orthodoxy—asking philosophical questions about the foundations of evidence-based approaches themselves. The philosophy of evidence-based orthodoxy investigates the epistemological status of evidentiary hierarchies: Are RCTs really always the best evidence? How do we know that systematic reviews are reliable? What counts as evidence for the evidence hierarchy itself? It also examines the values embedded in evidence-based approaches: Whose evidence counts? What kinds of knowledge are excluded? How do evidentiary standards serve institutional interests? The philosophy of evidence-based orthodoxy is essential for evidence-based practice to be self-aware rather than merely assumed, for practitioners to understand the philosophical foundations of their methods rather than treating them as self-evident.

Example: "His philosophy of evidence-based orthodoxy work asked whether the evidence hierarchy can justify itself—or whether it's a matter of faith that RCTs are best, since the claim itself hasn't been tested by RCT. Evidence-based practice may rest on foundations it can't examine with its own tools."

by Abzugal March 16, 2026