The Importance of Being Earnest: A Pragmatic Approach to Bullshitting Cornelis De Waal, In Bullshit and Philosophy, 2006

Some excerpts from Bullshit and Philosophy to kick off discussion I offer these quotations because they were lines that struck me as interesting and important in exploring what BS is and how it functions. I will present these to you with the hope that you have reactions to these quotes. But first, I have some questions for you. Please feel free to react as you wish.

Question—take your time and think of your response. What do you think De Waal has in mind when he refers to the distinction between bullshitting and bullshit? (p. 99)

What distinguishes bullshitting from genuine inquiry Intention

Cohen Bullshit and Frankfurt Bullshit Cohen focuses on bullshit as a product; Frankfurt focuses on the act of bullshitting; Cohen’s approach will be called a structuralist approach; Frankfurt’s approach will be called a intentionalist approach;

Intentionalist and Structuralist Approaches to Bullshit In the intentionalist school we are referring to the act of bullshitting; intention refers to the reason, motive, or purpose with which the act is engaged in; In the intentionalist school the focus is on the bullshitter, not the bullshit; Within the structuralist school, the focus is on the bullshit; According to the intentionalist school, you can be bullshitting, but someone else can see it as insight; intention doesn’t guarantee bullshit; In the structuralist school, whether something counts as bullshit has little to do with the intention with which it was generated, but counts wholly on its intrinsic features;

For Cohen and the Structuralist School If a piece of writing is “unclarifiably unclear” then it is bullshit, no matter what the writer’s intentions were; To decide if something is bullshit, for the structuralist, you must analyze the text; Accordingly, bullshitting and bullshit are independent of one another; One who is bullshitting may unwittingly produce brilliant insights; While someone who is genuinely concerned with the truth but happens to be hanging out with the wrong crowd, may become a veritable fountainhead of jargonistic bullshit; De Waal holds that if you were trying to bullshit but by accident offered the truth, he thinks it is still bullshit—based on your intention; At issue here is whether truth or not truth is the central feature of BS or is it intention that I central;

Calling something Trash has to do with the Attitude Toward It According to De Waal: Calling something bullshit has to do with the intention with which it is generated, and not with its intrinsic qualities; No object is trash in and of itself; similarly, no claim or argument is bullshit in and of itself; What characterizes genuine inquiry is neither its methods, nor its results, but the attitude with which it is conducted; The answer to the inquiry is not determined by what the inquirer believes it to be; the answer to the puzzle determines what the inquirer is going to conclude if he is interested in finding that answer;

Bullshitting vs. Brainstorming What distinguishes a brainstorm session from an evening of bullshitting is that the participants in the former are interested in discovering something, a desire that is altogether absent among bullshitters; Bullshitting lacks the openness of mind and the ability to adapt in face of new insights that are essential for anything to be taken seriously or as worth pursuing.

Why Bullshit? The social pressure to speak on any issue (often combined with the notion that whatever one says makes no difference); and A lack of faith in the possibility—or the usefulness—of genuine inquiry; The disillusion with genuine inquiry is generally due to a failed search for certainty;