Bullshit, Truth, and Reason

The effect of source credibility on bullshit receptivity

“…Related social implications of the finding that an evaluation of whether or how much a content without discernible meaning is wise depends on the credibility of the ascribed author are widespread and obvious. As previously explained, inherent nature of bullshit makes it irrefutable (Hopkin & Rosamond, 2018; Sarajlić, 2018). Consequence of this feature is that the person who produces bullshit is enabled to waive and avoid responsibility for the events that occur as “repercussions” of their claims (Sarajlić, 2018), which also might be part of the reason why bullshit is so prevalent today (Frankfurt, 2005; Pennycook, Cheyne, et al, 2015).…”

“…As previously explained, inherent nature of bullshit makes it irrefutable (Hopkin & Rosamond, 2018; Sarajlić, 2018). Consequence of this feature is that the person who produces bullshit is enabled to waive and avoid responsibility for the events that occur as “repercussions” of their claims (Sarajlić, 2018), which also might be part of the reason why bullshit is so prevalent today (Frankfurt, 2005; Pennycook, Cheyne, et al, 2015). Consider the following kicker statement from an article by a well‐known Serbian medical doctor and psychotherapist, which served him as an argument against the introduction of a law which would ban corporal punishment of children: “Just as it is to some extent true that ‘violence breeds violence’, it is also true that ‘non‐violence breeds violence’” (Milivojevic, 2011).…”

“…Consider the following kicker statement from an article by a well‐known Serbian medical doctor and psychotherapist, which served him as an argument against the introduction of a law which would ban corporal punishment of children: “Just as it is to some extent true that ‘violence breeds violence’, it is also true that ‘non‐violence breeds violence’” (Milivojevic, 2011). This sentence has all the characteristics of bullshit proposed so far from both the psychological and the philosophical stance: adding a negation sign to it does not change its plausibility (Cohen, 2002), it has nothing to do with the truth as truth is here irrelevant (Frankfurt, 2005; Pennycook, Cheyne, et al, 2015), but it is not a lie, as it is in fact a logical tautology (Frankfurt, 2005; Pennycook, Cheyne, et al, 2015), which makes it irrefutable (Sarajlić, 2018). The content prevents the listener from constructing relevant epistemic and practical premises as it does not give reasons either for or against a certain course of action (Sarajlić, 2018), while speaker's intention to convince a listener of something is quite clear (Cohen, 2002; Frankfurt, 2005; Sarajlić, 2018), and it provides him—the speaker, as well as his supporters, with enough space to claim that he never said something untrue or at least that he did not have such an intention (Sarajlić, 2018).…”

“…This sentence has all the characteristics of bullshit proposed so far from both the psychological and the philosophical stance: adding a negation sign to it does not change its plausibility (Cohen, 2002), it has nothing to do with the truth as truth is here irrelevant (Frankfurt, 2005; Pennycook, Cheyne, et al, 2015), but it is not a lie, as it is in fact a logical tautology (Frankfurt, 2005; Pennycook, Cheyne, et al, 2015), which makes it irrefutable (Sarajlić, 2018). The content prevents the listener from constructing relevant epistemic and practical premises as it does not give reasons either for or against a certain course of action (Sarajlić, 2018), while speaker's intention to convince a listener of something is quite clear (Cohen, 2002; Frankfurt, 2005; Sarajlić, 2018), and it provides him—the speaker, as well as his supporters, with enough space to claim that he never said something untrue or at least that he did not have such an intention (Sarajlić, 2018). This last characteristic is precisely what makes bullshit more dangerous and socially corrosive than lies (Hopkin & Rosamond, 2018; Sarajlić, 2018), and it is even more so when the author is by vocation a person of authority, as is the case with this example where the author, simply by being a psychotherapist and a doctor, holds an expert authority in the realm of childhood psychological development or upbringing, as well as everything that is more or less directly health‐related.…”

“…When one proposes such inference, according to Frankfurt, “what we are not to understand is that his (sic) intention is neither to report the truth nor to conceal it” (Frankfurt, 2005; p. 56). This feature of lacking the truth value has two important implications: such statements cannot be empirically tested and therefore cannot be refuted (Hopkin & Rosamond, 2018; Sarajlić, 2018) and people tolerate it better than lies, at the same time remaining confident in their ability to recognize it (Frankfurt, 2005). However, not only do people tolerate bullshit, but they also do not recognize it, and even consider it profound (Pennycook, Fugelsang, & Koehler, 2015; Pennycook & Rand, 2020; Pfattheicher & Schindler, 2016; Sterling et al, 2016).…”