1

Four Horsemen of the Cultural Apocalypse – Criminology,

Psychology, Sociology and Theology – Adventures in Pseudoscience
By Randy Gonzalez
 2

Four Horsemen of the Cultural Apocalypse – Criminology,

Psychology, Sociology and Theology – Adventures in Pseudoscience
By Randy Gonzalez
Historic attempts, feeble and selfish at best, the four horsemen of the cultural apocalypse long
endeavored to establish their relevance for defining human nature. For the tip of psychic iceberg,
the regression devolved from philosophical contemplation to pretentious claim of scientific
validity. Behold, they came from the darkness of human intentions, to claim truths yet to be found
in the shadowy mysteriousness of human intentions, motivations and eternal damnation. As to
pundits, politicians, the public and the proselytes for each cause, or school of thought, or cult of
confession, they fostered arrogance of speculation deemed “scientific”.
Of those not seriously qualifying as a science, as in astronomy, biology, chemistry, anatomy
and physiology, by way of rigorous analytic contention, philosophical conjecture conspired to
make its creations inventive nightmarish creatures. In the realms of academic, the path of least
resistance, the trails the herd frequently travels and the walkways crowded with mass gullibility,
sleight of hand mesmerized the many. As to the usual suspects, in the treachery of myth, magic
and metaphor, the four collude their smug piety in egregious fallacies of inference. Of that, the
wayward pretenses of magical thinking deludes the masses in simplistic thinking.
Complicity is found in the ease by which degreed sanctification blusters in the hallowed
sanctuaries of anecdotal regurgitation, flashbacks through history and bogus claims of research
validity. Where the challenge comes in mathematical analytics, biologic physicality, subatomic
microscopy, astronomical forensics, and proof of scientific validity, the horsemen excuse their
shortcomings in appeals that hope springs eternal. Subjective validation supersedes facts. Their
bafflegab trespasses upon many boundaries, as criminology, psychology, sociology and theology
strike back with a vengeance. None dare disagree and breaks from the formation.
In the adventures of pseudosciences, anything is possible, and yet, the mere mention of the
word should not engage fear, animosity or condemnation. Nothing about the term should invite
excommunication, exorcism or execution, but instead encourage the intensity of continuous
investigation. No silver bullets, holy water or laying on of hands should amass a counteroffensive
against those who might question the scientific authenticity of myriad conjectures. Healthy
skepticism in the pursuit of intellectual vitality, by insistence upon investigative scrutiny,
questioning and doubting specious generalizations, is creative and productive.
 3

Nonetheless, the mention of anything that might sound like, look like, or feel like a hint of
something akin to “pseudoscience”, the emotional reactivity transmutes a seemingly normal
looking individual into a venomous demonic entity. The question arises as what constitutes normal,
or better yet, what is a “reasonable person”. Additionally, the query begs the timeline as to when
it became acceptable to advance varying levels of stupidity or ignorance in terms of hunting down
the truth and proving evidence to support any assertion. The negativity is nauseous.
As to that historic point of reference, in article of major online science journal, the writer
ponders at what point in U.S. history it became part of the social mainstream to accept fiction over
facts. Further, as one of the founding fathers claimed well-reasoned thinking processes, supported
by scientific validation, and persistent testing and systematic study to prove or disprove, are
essential to the revelations of truth beyond doubt. The hint is in the writings of historic scientific
investigators and those who contributed to the Declaration of Independence.
While people have a right to their beliefs, at least to some degree in the West, knowledge
advances wisdom which transforms civilization, not by mere conjecture based on opinion, but by
intense study, rigorous testing and analysis, argument and dispute. Additionally, belief systems
either transform over time, or remain static prone to stagnation. Regardless, continuous
introspective assessment within each individual is essential.
Further, ongoing discourse is vital, as each ought to understand the other given their
perspective, time and place, maturity, experience, innovation, growth and discovery. As most are
where they are at a point in time, based on at least the forgoing, but also their selfless attention to
rigorous analysis of their ideations that channel into propositional viewpoints. Disagreement is
indispensable, while peer review is a fraud, unless the laboratory, or the crime lab, the microscope
proves the assertion at hand by the physical nature of scientific validation. Alternative
philosophical fascinations often remain fixated on unsubstantiated illusions.
Ideological claims are insufficient without the stringent testing of evidentiary authentication by
the weight of physical realm provability. As to that, beliefs, especially those of an occultic,
supernatural or cultic philosophical standpoint are immensely tainted by the bias of subjective
validation. Key to the maturation of experienced real-world credibility includes the degree to
which transformation has chosen a higher path of informed enlightenment. While everyone should
labor to transcend their personal egoistic intentions, most will be unwilling to concede their self-
interests. Unfortunately, arrogance contrives to make pseudoscience into a science.
 4

For non-practitioners in the various schools of philosophy, particularly those who transferred
from the classroom to the faculty room, and never set foot in the real world, the challenge of
credible scientific validation remains daunting. So much so, that “field research” often passes on
as anecdotal observations, interviews, surveys and speculations regarding other research. In the
regurgitation of previous opinionated speculations, sometimes, a facade of “scientific” is attached
to the inquiry. Sooner or later, others begin to accept the “scientific validation”.
The gamesmanship becomes even more pervasive as that public begins to accept ideological
perspectives as “conclusive proof” of an unsubstantiated claim. While some investigators have
tried to foster a round table discussion on issues of “real science” versus “pseudoscience”, as well
as “peer review” versus critical analysis, the experience has been less than satisfactory. Particularly
in the world of academia, where fantasy sometimes becomes a defensive theory, challenges to the
pretentious allegory of fiction masquerading as fact, usually invites severe reaction.
To claim or otherwise perpetrate the illusion of a science, a particular school of thought, or
ideology, etc., does little to promote problem solving in everyday matters of human behavior.
While various doctrinal and dogmatic traditions assert a scientific basis, the reality is such that a
claim of using “scientific methodology” is a shallow appeal the practicality. By the convolutions
of magical thinking, it is a leap of faith from theory to evidentiary validation. And, in the 21st
century, reflecting the words of one scientist, people may have forsaken the ability to distinguish
between science and science fiction. Personal bias skews every point of view.
For the inclination to subjective validation, bias enters every query. Control of that
predisposition by way of some effort at objectivity is vital to any investigation. Accordingly, this
suggests the influence of the investigators personal beliefs. Attempts have been made to identify
preconceived notions and their influence in relation to ideological partiality. Depending on the
survey and the organization conducting the survey, results may vary to some degree. In this regard,
one study of religious inclination by a major research agency, as pertains to a “belief in God”,
suggested little of 80% of the participants believed in a “higher authority”.
That is to say, the majority claimed a belief in a divine being or supernatural entity that
influences their lives. On an education basis, those with graduate degrees were reported to have a
believability range of about 70%. Of course, the temptation here is to speculate on the influence
of belief systems and the claim of “scientific methodology” among the pseudosciences. Where two
thirds of educated persons believe in the supernatural, how does that impact objectivity?
 5

The illusionary intricacy assumes many parts of the whole. Taking belief systems from “cultic”,
or dogmatic sources, the comingling of presumptive errors compound the mythic proportions by
which fallacies of inference transition to accepted hastily drawn conclusion. In collusion with
multiple facetious claims, unsubstantiated by the organic rigors of physical evidence, whether
microscopic or cosmic, viewpoints, opinions and gossipy flirtations mutate into grotesque forms
of imaginative superstitions. In most controversies of argumentation and debate, as regards human
behavior from a mental analysis, interactivity of interpersonal exchange should be cautiously
anticipated. One or more participants may not have achieved sufficient maturation.
To confront or otherwise interact in more profanely productive ways, a certain degree
individualization is necessary. Bias, prejudice, immaturity, inexperience, lack of close contact with
reality, and so on, stifle energetic intensity for enlightened liberation. As suggested in the forgoing,
dogmatic and doctrinaire beliefs constrict visionary processes. This suggests probable generational
rift, as younger generations may not have arrived at levels of competency strengthened by years
of experience, education and personal transformation. Mature, adult, grownup and wiser
insightfulness requires extraordinary investment of well-differentiated selflessness.
An example of the youthful indifference to adventurous discovery outside the monogamous
constrictions of institutional conformity, comes in the form of limited and defensive perspectives.
One aspect is easily attacking alternative points of views, such as the ease by which schools of
thought in psychology quickly condescend the medical specialty of psychiatry. That is fascinating
intrigue of extraordinary bias, especially considering the roots of psychology. Opinions are not
evidence of extraordinary discovery for the complete explanation of human nature.
But of course, in mainstream American society, any conjecture can be accepted without
question as scientific efficacy. Of which, the frauds perpetrate the worst afflictions over a
weakened society. In a dumbed down culture, self-imposed of course, anything is believable. Plus,
bias reflects the academic arrogance of fearful, self-absorbed, child-like infantile narcissism. In
this, as for example within the collegiate communities, academia perpetrates the fantasy as fact,
absent materiality of scientific proof. And yet, the hypocrisy runs rampant.
On the offensive, in a celebrity worship culture, any actor of famous characterization can
pontificate on any social issues and be accepted as authorities. While free speech is one thing, and
an opinion is good anyone else’s, expertise is quite an exception. Opinions, gossip and rumors are
not evidence. To use one’s wealth, status and influence is not equitable.
 6

Where bias clouds conjecture and otherwise influences conclusions, observational

misinterpretation hazes over the reliability of personal perspective. All utterances should be
suspected of cognitive bias, as eyewitness testimony is subjected to cross-examination. Yet,
frequently, to leverage one’s apparent status of supposedly famous stature and notoriety, to
espouse an opinion as though fact or scientific validation, is to use the force and effect of egoistic
intimidation. It is insulting and abusive to presuppose one’s socio-economic political status is more
relevant than some else. Power and privilege do not infer intelligence.
Such arrogant notions, as for example a Hollywood actor, blabbering about guns and school
violence are essentially private opinions. Often such blathering are superficial for fame and
personal promotion, and avoid any semblance of scientific or evidentiary authentication.
Unsubstantiated speculations do more harm than good and serve to mislead others. In the use of
wealth, pretense of authority, and presumed reputation, many frauds are perpetrated.
Given the nature of egregious fallacies of inference, public policy can be adversely affects, as
politicians tend to be easy targets of pseudoscience. Such exhibitions of notoriety use the unfair
advantage of material success to promote a particular economic or political agenda. Often the result
is further erosion of any aspect of intellectual discourse to serve the greater good, or protect the
general welfare of the republic. Too frequently, stupidity advances instead of wisdom. When the
four horsemen enter the scene of societal interactivity, pseudoscience quickly becomes the
imposter impersonating the reality of scientific validity. Fiction replaces fact.
A very quick admonition is to exercise a sense of healthy skepticism by common sense
application of cynical analysis. People say and do what people say do because it’s what they desire
to do. Claims, assertions and studies of any kind are to be carefully investigated by testing the data,
insisting upon replication and ensuring scientific efficacy. At one of the inquiry is the immediate
understanding that correlation cannot be confused with causation. Regardless, the intentional
collusion is committed every day in the not so hallowed halls of academia.
In the non-science realm of philosophical speculation, anything is possible. Pseudoscience can
easily concoct an explanation and assert a correlation as a causation. While comparing an apple
and orange side by side, one can infer the relationship as examples of fruit. In terms of a distinctive
differentiation, a dissimilar nature emerges. Nonetheless, many can easily conjure along a
simplistic continuum claim a specificity of correlation to causation generalities. No matter what
the facts may show, some will insist every apple is actually an orange.
 7

Since the comparison of the fruit was conducted over a bushel or a basket or two, the
observational bias, and the resulting survey assessment, extrapolate a very broad generalization.
Given the fruit’s family tree, seasonal abnormalities, and agricultural inequities, it is easy to infer
that all apples and oranges are exactly the same. In other words, one template fits all. After labeling
one or more as “bad apples”, or “rotten oranges”, the diagnosis, or cultivation, transitions to a
“cure”, which typically means a drug therapy, or pesticide to kill off the psychic contagion.
In the end, a question lingers in the haze of magical thinking, regardless of protestations and
threats of retaliation for political correctness violations, and that is what does the scientific
evidence show? Followed up by, what does the blood test, x-ray, ultra sound or other lab test
reveal? Offenses are easily taken when serious speculation challenges viewpoints. However, when
consensus, or by majority vote, a theoretical construct becomes a “diagnosis”, skepticism ought to
fill the void in the empty spaces around the special conjecture.
The insightful inquisitor chases every element of claims said to be true to the exclusion of every
other possibility. Unfortunately, in a devolving society, facts are easily circumvented for the
satiation of the most convenient and simplistic explanation. Of which, conjecture is not really an
explanation at all. Speculation as to the superficiality of an alleged “mental illness” issue is an
opinion based on a theory. It is centuries old dogma exorcizing demons, or fortune telling
masquerading as “criminal profiling”, or pseudoscience pretending to be science.
Doctrines of the supernatural are schemes of myth, magic and metaphysical suppositions, for
which something called faith accepts undefinable phenomena. Faithfulness to an ideology does
not insist upon the rigors of scientific validation. Meanwhile, in the hypocrisy of belief, if 80% of
the population, including adherents of certain schools of “social studies”, believe in things
supernatural, bias of speculation has been influenced before the fact.
So, bias influences conclusions about one thing or another, while observations of the biased
inquirer has preconceived notions as to subsequent observations. In conjunction, designing a form
of investigation, or model to be tested, in conjunction with predisposition aforethought, influences
the outcome determined in the results. To this primordial mix, throw in “scientific sounding”
jargon and anecdotal references similarly supportive, and a whole scheme of conjecture becomes
believable. Now add a spiritual dimension, or occult symbolism, or doctrinaire admonition, and
eventually the unsubstantiated claims will be accepted. By politicians, pundits and the public.
Willful acceptance follows the easy path of simplistic acquiescence.
 8

Easy trouble free receptivity does not provide the motivational basis of in-depth inquiry. To say
that “it turns out that”, “it has been reported that”, or “it is assumed that”, and so on, does not
substantiate anything. In fact, to the contrary, immediate challenge should be issued. Any and all
claims are to be vigorously tested, debated and questioned. Alleged data ought to receive critical
analysis, while opinion, rumor and gossip are never to be accepted without thorough investigation.
Likewise, jargon, labeling, and so-called diagnoses from a philosophical viewpoint are to be
questioned without hesitance. Included in this inquisition is any pretentiousness relative to
anecdotal claims of supposed credibility. Similarly, faith proves nothing.
Motive, means and opportunity is an illusion. This typical “crime solving” rubric sounds nice
in a movie or television drama. The public finds this sort of simplicity easy to digest. However, it
is misleading. At best, a starting point. Nonetheless, such a perspective can be misleading and
counterproductive. In a classical criminological spectrum, such admonitions by an inquirer are
meaningless unless evidentiary substantiation suffices the authenticity of scientific validation.
Every critical analysis invites the provocation as to whether or not an issue can be elevated to a
scientific sufficiency by matters of reliable proof of technical authentication.
Absent serious evidentiary verification, credible legitimacy and substantive multifaceted
verification, supposition based on opinion remains insufficient. As research comes in many forms,
and data often manipulated to ensure subjective validation, intense scrutiny of any claim is
essential. Otherwise, conjecture, assumption, inference, and so forth, are speculative points of
interests that demand deeper investigation. To the reference of motive, means and opportunity,
yes, fiction writers are fond of any phrase redundantly torturing one cliché after another.
Outside the hardcore sciences of forensic analysis, the “soft sciences”, “social studies, or more
adversely the pseudosciences, perpetuate grievous fallacies of inference that render an assortment
of hasty generalizations. Especially in detective fiction, movies, television, etc., the repetitive
nature of fallacies of inference unfortunately carry over into the real world. Unfortunately, people
will believe anything. Faulty conclusions, lazily drawn through the zeal of immediate gratification
for a definitive “singular theory”, erroneously pontificated upon cognitive bias, results in
unsubstantiated conjecture. This sets the stage of divisive social policy and hastens the eventual
demise of the human species. That point relates to the regressive inclinations of human devolution.
In a world losing the imaginative edge of innovation, the decay of analytic insight, and the loss of
rational methodology, self-serving infantilism invites a dystopic set of consequences.
 9

Observing post-election vehemence in the grotesque rhetoric of condescension is but one

example of a regressively adversarial trend in the American society. An entitled sense of retaliation
for perceived claim of “victimization”, irrationally justifies a “get even” mentality. Selfishness,
the grand scheme of personal enrichment, easily allows the seduction to any mythic or supernatural
means to exert power, control and domination over others. From the standpoint of personal belief
systems, influenced by ideological extremes of one form or another, the baseless claims of over-
simplification justifies egregious fallacies of inference clinging to hasty generalizations.
Lacking the backbone, expressing cowardice in avoiding courageous actions toward wiser
ascension, and degrading the freedom of individuality, the social mainstream exhibits an illicit
collective consensus that conspires to stifle mature growth. In the process of perpetual putdowns
toward another’s perspective because they disagree, expresses the erosion of the free exercise of
competitive ideations. Maturation to higher states of mental and physical individuality demands
fortitude beyond the normal routine of daily interactivity.
In addition, such evolving transformation bears the signpost of pointing in the direction of an
attendant possibility toward a more probable outcome of higher self-realization. Across the
superficiality of social media and “opinionated” news reporting, the shallowness of bloated
“mindless” conceit wallows in the shortsighted inebriation of degrading arrogance. As such, anti-
thinking pervades the array of communal connections with a range of nonsensical notions for the
sake of emotional reactivity. In support of the status quo consensus of myriad small-minded
illusions, meaningful levels of rational understanding stifle the elevation of society.
As alleged in one major publication, representing one of the four horsemen (criminology,
psychology, sociology and theology), an author for the “psyche” realm accuses religion as being
representative of faulty reasoning that leads to magical thinking. In so doing, the claimant suggests
gross errors of “cognitive bias” in the spheres of religiosity and the paranormal. The argument
proposed is that such things are the result of wishful thinking not scientific validation.
Such is a fascinating notion emanating from field closely allied to the psychological aspects
within the arena of “social studies”. But wait, one could offer by contrast that the “four horsemen”
are very closely related in that real science is not a strong element in their entrenched domains. All
such accusations, claims and ideological perspectives devolve to speculations based on
philosophical biases. Hope springs eternal in the non-reality of subjective validation and ensuring
consistent patterns of simplistic conjecture. As such, the status quo remains secure.
 10

https://literotica.com/s/chrystal-chalice-episode-01

https://www.literotica.com/s/chrystal-chalice-ep-02

https://www.literotica.com/s/dystopia-now-ep-01

https://www.literotica.com/stories/memberpage.php?uid=3809255&page=submissions

https://www.scribd.com/document/397937379/Chrystal-Chalice-Who-Owns-the-Palace-Episode-3

http://whimsicalpublications.com/Randy_Gonzalez/Randy_Gonzalez.html