Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bullshit

stoa.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 38 posts

Re: Bullshit

#21

Post by pdonis »

zorbo wrote: post #10
Aoyagi wrote: post #2

>Advertising, Public relations, Political propaganda, Education, Love, sex and romance, News media, Technology, Business, Art, Medicine Not religion? Aww...

I don't consider what happens in religion bullshit as defined by the article. I think this sums it up pretty well: > The liar, by contrast, is concerned with the truth, in a perverse sort of fashion: he wants to lead us away from it. As Frankfurt sees it, the liar and the truthteller are playing on opposite sides of the same game, a game defined by the authority of truth. The bullshitter opts out of this game altoget…

> its proponents at least are guided by some underlying "truth" (belief).

The same could be said of other areas mentioned in the list in the post you were responding to. The point appears to be not that the entire field is bullshit, but that one can find examples of bullshit in the field. I would even add science to the list if that's the criterion; one can find examples of bullshit in science as well.

If, OTOH, the point was to give fields that appear to be primarily bullshit, I would not have put education, love, sex and romance, technology, business, art, and medicine on the list. (Or science.)

Re: Bullshit

#22

Post by lhnz »

A lot of what people call bullshit is necessary social grease/grace [0].

Trust and authority are currently centralised and because this is the case if you want to belong to society you will have to become more forgiving of bullshit.

Additionally I haven't met a single person yet (and I include myself in this wonderful category) that doesn't believe their own bullshit.

Whenever I hear somebody imply that they're always correct and never believe or act upon anything that can be empirically disproven I call bullshit at that or wonder whether they've ever risked believing and acting upon anything at all?

If you truly despise bullshit then do this: before you point the finger at others realise that you're likely one of them, and that if you really want to lessen it your best chance will be to start with yourself. This is called humility.

How might you do this? Well perhaps before or after you say something, you can turn to others and ask them what they truly think without imposing expectations or qualifications that they must agree with you. And remember even if they respond saying "yes, that sounds right" you could still be wrong and trust me here you will eventually be wrong. You are only human.

If the cognitive dissonance of knowing that you will never be a perfectly rational being is too much for you, then continue believing whatever you want about your intellect and others quackery as the world will not stop you.

I guess we all need our egos [1].

  *   *   *
[0] Firstly, I define bullshit as the action of using higher social skills to offset lower domain knowledge. Secondly, my intuition is that belief in bullshit also stabilises large groups: I would be just as worried about a lack of bullshit as I would harm caused by bullshit.

[1] Our need to politicise and attack the bullshit of somebody with higher status shows our wish to have the injustice of not being the dominant re-evaluated by our group, while our need to attack the bullshit of those with lower status is a strategy to fight off perceived pretenders of our position. Resentment and contempt are after all two sides of the same coin, both used when we don't want to personally act on our feelings.

Re: Bullshit

#23

Post by dragonwriter »

fit2rule wrote: post #5
Aoyagi wrote: post #2

>Advertising, Public relations, Political propaganda, Education, Love, sex and romance, News media, Technology, Business, Art, Medicine Not religion? Aww...

Religion is bullshit for bullshits sake. Is religion not the only place where bullshit is acceptable, nay .. even required .. and that people know that before they get involved in one?

> Religion is bullshit for bullshits sake.

I'd rather strongly disagree with that. Because it appeals to a form of justification which makes verifiability in any decisive sense largely impossible, it is a fertile venue for "bullshit" (in the terms used in the article) -- and for the same reason, for "liars", which the article distinguishes -- but it is not, either in principle or in practice, either exclusively bullshit nor "for bullshits sake". The purposes of bullshitting, lying, or truth-telling in religion are pretty much the same as they are in any other venue.

Re: Bullshit

#24

Post by mcguire »

Many of the example links in the article go to The Onion. (And there's Thank You For Smoking.)

Is the author trying to imply that irony, sarcasm, and satire are bullshit?

Re: Bullshit

#25

Post by [deleted] »

Aoyagi wrote: post #2

>Advertising, Public relations, Political propaganda, Education, Love, sex and romance, News media, Technology, Business, Art, Medicine Not religion? Aww...

[deleted]

Re: Bullshit

#26

Post by DanielBMarkham »

2500 years later, and we still have Socrates fighting the Sophists.

I'd be very careful with definitions here. Because many human endeavors can be observed and described from many different angles, the wisest course of action many times may be to emotionally disengage and describe one or many of the sides without caring about a discussion of universal truth. This does not make one a bullshitter, although by this definition it does.

Re: Bullshit

#27

Post by furyg3 »

mistermann wrote: post #17
wavefunction wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm interested in their conclusions that gun-control and recycling are bullshit. Was this a political thing for them, that they don't support these behaviors politically and so concluded after "examining" the resulting effects that behaving in this way (controlling guns or recycling) don't have the claimed effects?

My anecdotal understanding of recycling is that something like 90% (????) of waste is industrial, so any consumer efforts to recycle are largely futile in the big scheme of things (not sure if that was their angle, also not sure how much truth there is to it). I'm of the opinion that most strong advocates of recycling also aren't aware of these numbers, and more importantly, don't care , but maybe I'm wrong on that (…

If the problem is caused by a culture of consumerism and economic efficiency, do you expect to fix it with a focus on efficiency or cultural change?

Educational and stimulative efforts (through fines or rewards) have been successful in the sense that most people generally agree that being less wasteful and trying to recycle is a good idea, and know/feel that they could do more. This culture seeps into meetings, boardrooms, and annual reports, as well as laws, courts, and policing.

Re: Bullshit

#28

Post by parasubvert »

wavefunction wrote: post #13
badman_ting wrote: post #6

Yeah, Penn & Teller started out debunking psychics and so on -- then they decided gun control and recycling are bullshit too. I think one needs to be very careful about this business of "cutting through the bullshit" or whatever. It's easy to turn it into a self-righteous way of talking about whatever you disagree with. You're not just disagreeing, you're scoring a victory for the truth in a world full of crap, etc.,…

I'm interested in their conclusions that gun-control and recycling are bullshit. Was this a political thing for them, that they don't support these behaviors politically and so concluded after "examining" the resulting effects that behaving in this way (controlling guns or recycling) don't have the claimed effects?

Penn Jillette is a vocal Libertarian (leaning anarcho-capitalist), and fellow at the Cato Institute. So yes, I'd say it is a political thing for them.

That said, their approach to these topics tends to be one of the more tolerable I've seen, as they actually have a sense of humour, unlike most ideologues.

Re: Bullshit

#29

Post by bradleysmith »

wavefunction wrote: post #13
badman_ting wrote: post #6

Yeah, Penn & Teller started out debunking psychics and so on -- then they decided gun control and recycling are bullshit too. I think one needs to be very careful about this business of "cutting through the bullshit" or whatever. It's easy to turn it into a self-righteous way of talking about whatever you disagree with. You're not just disagreeing, you're scoring a victory for the truth in a world full of crap, etc.,…

I'm interested in their conclusions that gun-control and recycling are bullshit. Was this a political thing for them, that they don't support these behaviors politically and so concluded after "examining" the resulting effects that behaving in this way (controlling guns or recycling) don't have the claimed effects?

guns: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVzOV1EeeHw

recycling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rExEVZlQia4

Re: Bullshit

#30

Post by h1kar3 »

fit2rule wrote: post #5
Aoyagi wrote: post #2

>Advertising, Public relations, Political propaganda, Education, Love, sex and romance, News media, Technology, Business, Art, Medicine Not religion? Aww...

Religion is bullshit for bullshits sake. Is religion not the only place where bullshit is acceptable, nay .. even required .. and that people know that before they get involved in one?

I guess many people have different perspectives.
Post reply on HN