class procedure
category classification
motivation comparison
science aversion 🟥=improbity 🟧=fallacy 🟩=ok

In order to classify organizations and arguments, this project uses a crude scoring system. It's entirely unscientific, an approximation at best, and primarily meant for comparative tagging.

  • Currently there's 5 colored boxes each to accumulate.
  • Related/dependant misbeliefs shouldn't count twice.
  • Red takes precedence over orange/yellow.
  • If there's at least one balancing/positive aspect, it should not be omitted.

Once the scope settles (too early for now), it's certainly helpful to rebase the scoring on fixed sets of objectives. In particular for organizations. Ideally this should later be transitioned to a questionaire scoring. (But obviously, there would be limited participation.)

color coding

While the colorization is largely decorative, it should make an attempt at quantifying bias or contortions. For example:

unicode glyph color usage
U+1F7E5 🟥 red deceptive intent
U+1F7E7 🟧 orange misaprehension / fallacy
U+1F7E8 🟨 yellow slighter misunderstanding
U+1F7E9 🟩 green credible representation
U+1F7EB 🟫 brown auxiliary argument flinging
U+1F7EA 🟪 purple transparent conflation
U+1F7E6 🟦 blue unused

science aversion

Quantifies the amount of untruths being used to support arguments. Scoring might be based on:

ergo-harmful / nicotine-equals-tobacco 🟥 or 🟧
rodent-studies / brain-damage / 🟥
evali 🟥
popcorn-brain / longterm-studies 🟧
think-of-the-children / flavour-fallacy +🟥 or 🟧
gateway-hypothesis / +🟥
furthering risk-perception 🟧

Respectively a green box 🟩 for each, if it's not used as obvious detraction.


Should roughly quantify the intent to mislead. Ideally the scoring options should later be useable for a more algorithmic scoring of orgs. (The markdown tables are useless for automation however.)

public discourse

This might be easiest to quantify, where applicable:

no participation in public mailing lists +🟥
refusal to engage / reply +🟥
PR/newsletter-oriented messaging only +🟥
ghostwriting (no authorship/versioning) 🟧
pretext "unshared opinions indicate employment by the tobacco industry!" +🟥
throwing even Interpol out of meetings (WHO/FCTC) +🟥


Clearly leans towards negative scoring. But I guess that's par for the course here. Though the incentive to also note some niceties, shouldn't distract from the onus being on the discussed parties. --mario