3 ms·

A recommended read, mostly for awareness. Two notes: -- it is argued that "bullshitting is not lying, as the true/false state remains unknown to the actor bec

by mdp2021 4y ago

A recommended read, mostly for awareness. Two notes: -- it is argued that "bullshitting is not lying, as the true/false state remains unknown to the actor because considered irrelevant": well, no, it is still substantially lying, as a disregard for truth. And I am not even checking philology, as I would normally do before discussing meanings: this is not a matter about the meaning of 'true' or 'lie', but substantial ethics. -- it is noted that we do not have enough "bullshit checkers". Now that is not the node: the node remains culture, intelligence, education, for many reasons; one of them is that "truth content" is not trivial and cannot be checked by anyone and cheaply and decisively. Boosting the fundamentals limits the undesirable phenomenon and more; just fighting the undesirable phenomenon will not guarantee "a step forwards" and will not be "a step above".

skybrian 4y ago
As can be seen in any online forum, being somewhat indifferent to knowing the facts is normal in ordinary conversation. This is how rumor, gossip, and speculation work. If you're going to call that lying, most people are lying most of the time. It's only in some formal writing that you go out of your way to check everything.
- watwut 4y ago
  It is still lying. Most people when they talk, they are not trying to bullshit. They may be wrong, but they are not indifferent to the notion of truth.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > indifferent to knowing the facts is normal in ordinary conversation ...With that one is brought back to philology: that would be "normal" "descriptively, or according to frequency", but not "prescriptively, or according to norm" :) > If you're going to call that lying Not just me, I grant you, but a long tradition. Yes, not holding truth as a "ground condition" is regarded as lying (i.e. further distinctions have little matter). > rumor, gossip, and speculation Not in context. Reporting rumors, in the form of "Some say X" or "Some say X under conditions C", is a normal statement with T/F values. A "gossipper" ("godsibling", "acquired relative") reports rumors about an "inner circle" and falls in the other case. Speculation works through hypoteticals, which in the form "There are grounds to state that if A then probably B" is again a normal statement with T/F (and TF/~T~F) values.
  - skybrian 4y ago
    A gossiper reports rumors without doing any checking for accuracy. That seems rather indifferent to the truth? Phrasing it as a technically true statement by adding “some say” in front is still rather indifferent to the truth of the rumor, as normally understood. Similarly, statements of the form “if X were true then Y would be true” are independent of the actual truth value of X, which is often unknown. If you care whether X is true or not, it’s entirely unhelpful. It’s indifferent to the truth of X because it’s an independent statement. These can be seen as forms of bullshitting that avoids being technically incorrect. It’s sort of like we’re doing now. We’re not discussing the ground truth of anything concrete.
    - mdp2021 4y ago
      You seem to be referring to linguistic contexts in which the purpose is not aletic (or in the direction of aletic) but emotional (etc). (For what the hypotetical are concerned, they are T/F statements... They do not access a truth in the set of instanced facts, but one in the logical realm - still not BSing.) The dimensions can be relatively independent - so you could plot the instances on a Cartesian graph, one axis describing the "adherence to Truth", the other other practical intents. You may be comforting, you may be selling, etc.: you can do all of that without lying. Here we are discussing: it is not impossible that somebody came just to pass the time (purpose), with utter disregard to any truth, and that may facilitate drifting towards bullshitting - but it a more fitting idea to regard exchangers as investigators over some matter, which is still an aletic activity, and the opposite of BSing.
pixl97 4y ago
>one of them is that "truth content" is not trivial and cannot be checked by anyone and cheaply and decisively https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it."

skybrian 4y ago

As can be seen in any online forum, being somewhat indifferent to knowing the facts is normal in ordinary conversation. This is how rumor, gossip, and speculation work. If you're going to call that lying, most people are lying most of the time. It's only in some formal writing that you go out of your way to check everything.

watwut 4y ago
It is still lying. Most people when they talk, they are not trying to bullshit. They may be wrong, but they are not indifferent to the notion of truth.
mdp2021 4y ago
> indifferent to knowing the facts is normal in ordinary conversation ...With that one is brought back to philology: that would be "normal" "descriptively, or according to frequency", but not "prescriptively, or according to norm" :) > If you're going to call that lying Not just me, I grant you, but a long tradition. Yes, not holding truth as a "ground condition" is regarded as lying (i.e. further distinctions have little matter). > rumor, gossip, and speculation Not in context. Reporting rumors, in the form of "Some say X" or "Some say X under conditions C", is a normal statement with T/F values. A "gossipper" ("godsibling", "acquired relative") reports rumors about an "inner circle" and falls in the other case. Speculation works through hypoteticals, which in the form "There are grounds to state that if A then probably B" is again a normal statement with T/F (and TF/~T~F) values.
- skybrian 4y ago
  A gossiper reports rumors without doing any checking for accuracy. That seems rather indifferent to the truth? Phrasing it as a technically true statement by adding “some say” in front is still rather indifferent to the truth of the rumor, as normally understood. Similarly, statements of the form “if X were true then Y would be true” are independent of the actual truth value of X, which is often unknown. If you care whether X is true or not, it’s entirely unhelpful. It’s indifferent to the truth of X because it’s an independent statement. These can be seen as forms of bullshitting that avoids being technically incorrect. It’s sort of like we’re doing now. We’re not discussing the ground truth of anything concrete.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    You seem to be referring to linguistic contexts in which the purpose is not aletic (or in the direction of aletic) but emotional (etc). (For what the hypotetical are concerned, they are T/F statements... They do not access a truth in the set of instanced facts, but one in the logical realm - still not BSing.) The dimensions can be relatively independent - so you could plot the instances on a Cartesian graph, one axis describing the "adherence to Truth", the other other practical intents. You may be comforting, you may be selling, etc.: you can do all of that without lying. Here we are discussing: it is not impossible that somebody came just to pass the time (purpose), with utter disregard to any truth, and that may facilitate drifting towards bullshitting - but it a more fitting idea to regard exchangers as investigators over some matter, which is still an aletic activity, and the opposite of BSing.

pixl97 4y ago

>one of them is that "truth content" is not trivial and cannot be checked by anyone and cheaply and decisively https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it."