The Dark Side of the Loon. Explaining the Temptations of Obscurantism

Abstract

After contrasting obscurantism with bullshit, we explore some ways in which obscurantism is typically justified by investigating a notorious test-case: defences of Lacanian psychoanalysis. Obscurantism abuses the reader's natural sense of curiosity and interpretive charity with the promise of deep and profound insights about a designated subject matter that is often vague or elusive. When the attempt to understand what the speaker means requires excessive hermeneutic efforts, interpreters are reluctant to halt their quest for meaning. We diagnose this as a case of psychological loss aversion, in particular, the aversion to acknowledging that there was no hidden meaning after all, or that whatever meaning found was projected onto the text by the reader herself.

Reception and willingness to share pseudo‐profound bullshit and their relation to other epistemically suspect beliefs and cognitive ability in Slovakia and Romania

“…The bullshitter has no concern for the accuracy of what is being transmitted as long as the desired effect is obtained (e.g., to impress, to gain advantage, and to get out of a particular situation). Buekens and Boudry () distinguished between obscurantism and bullshit, claiming that because the bullshitter is uninterested in both the language employed and the audience's reception, obscurantism is an attempt to mask the lack of depth and insight using elaborate linguistic formulations that suggest the need for further, more comprehensive investigation. Moreover, obscurantism specifically aims to keep the audience perpetually trapped in a futile search for deeper understanding and maintaining the speaker's more desirable, knowledgeable image.…”

Será a psicanálise uma pseudociência? Reavaliando a doutrina utilizando uma lista de multicritérios

“…Os outros autores da psicanálise também seguiram os passos de Freud. Para que se acredite nas colocações de Lacan, por exemplo, é necessário primeiro acatá-las como verdadeiras e atribuir a ele um papel de autoridade, já que o leitor não tem como comprová-las independentemente, nem tem recursos para compreender explicitamente seus significados [10]. Porém, para além disso, no caso do fundador, é possível que não existam motivos nem mesmo para acreditar na veracidade de suas narrativas.…”

“…Um texto obscurantista, apesar de aparentar trazer um conteúdo robusto sobre um determinado tópico, na realidade não o faz [10]. Isso parece relevante principalmente quando retornamos à definição de pseudociência: de maneira semelhante, no caso do obscurantismo, é criada uma impressão de cientificidade enquanto há um afastamento considerável da ciência (no sentido ampliado).…”

“…Buekens e Boudry [10] mostram que a psicanálise lacaniana é outro exemplo de obscurantismo. Lacan assume que o inconsciente é estruturado como uma linguagem e defende que sua escrita seria equivalente à expressão de seu próprio inconsciente.…”

Untitled

“…Their research results suggest that 'a bias toward accepting statements as true may be an important component of pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity' (Pennycook et al 2015, 549). Their focus is different from what is found in the philosophy of bullshit (Black 2015;Buekens and Boudry 2015;Frankfurt 2005), because they are primarily interested in the factors 'that predispose one to become or to resist becoming 34 management • volume 14 a bullshitee and not in goals and intentions' (Pennycook et al 2015, 550) of bullshitters. They give two reasons why some people rate pseudo-profound bullshit as profound: first, some people may have a stronger bias toward accepting things as true or meaningful and second, some people are simply unable to detect bullshit.…”