The Deadly Spread of Bulverism on ATS

reply to post by Serdgiam


Bias does not equate to experience in my opinion. I was biased against the idea of ever using an iPad for a long time, because I honestly did not see the point in it. My attitude was, either sit at a laptop (which were cheaper than iPads and had more functionality) or get off the net, and your butt, and go and do something healthy, like take a walk, or have a real honest to goodness conversation with your neighbour.

I had no experience of using one at all, but was totally against the idea. Now though, I realise that I was being a massive jackass. The bloody things are handy as can be, and I have barely begun to explore the possibilities presented by apps that are out there, which could improve my experience even further, like the LCARS command screen skin, which turns the pad into what appears to be a console right off the bridge of the Enterprise from the Next Generation era of Star Trek.

Edit to add: I made an error at the top of this post, which rendered the entire content of the post somewhat contextually confused. This is why I shouldn't post after midnight :p

reply to posts by Serdgiam and poet1b

Gentlemen,

I have no disagreement, but I am a bit confused.

How in the world do we use probability in this kind of analysis? Refer back to the conversation Mr. Bulver had with his wife. (Preliminary investigations indicate she may have had the name Imogene.) There are either three sides to a triangle or there are not. How is a probability set?

Doesn't probability require us to say, "Out of one hundred attempts, we will achieve the desired result fifteen times?" How can we possibly know it will be fifteen times until we've discovered that it exists at all?

I know I'm not speaking clearly here. I'm hoping that other, better, minds will be able to state, and clarify, my problems with probability as used here.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by RedCairo

Dear RedCairo,

I think I'm going to respond seriously, although I am sorely tempted to engage in flights of fancy. (Would those be Fancy Flights? "Not that there's anything wrong with that.")

Reviewing this post, I see that my resolve has failed.

It's clear you are my master in these discussions. (Master? No, you're a woman. Mistress? Oh, Heck no, not that. I give up. (Blush))

I have been blessed in this thread by those who have come to share with me and other ATSers. Serdgiam and RedCairo most recently, but certainly others.

In case you ATSers haven't noticed it, Serdgiam and RedCairo are brilliant. Get their stuff, read their stuff, live their stuff. They're very different in some ways, but "wow" is all I can say. Solid thinking as deep as you care to go, humor and fantasy to the heights of delight. (How will I ever apologize to those earlier in the thread whose names I have forgotten?)

I went back to the first page and found bigfatfurrytexan, Wrabbit2000, Bassago, Voidhawk, and so many more. Their sheer wonderfulness (wondefulosity?) establish the base for this thread that others could build on. I owe you all a lot.

(Oh, talking with Lewis? I suppose you know that Lewis, JFK, and Aldous Huxley died on the same day in the same year. What a fascinating discussion they must have had. In fact, Peter Kreeft wrote a book about it.)

Dear RedCairo, I don't understand your interest in me. Look at my mini-profile. Right there in, well whatever colors SkepticOverlord is using these days, you'll find me listed as "Just a guy." Anything posted on ATS has to be true, so I don't get it. My name is Charles, I was born in 1952, and my street address is 702. What more could you want? (I heartily approve of John Deere green. It is so superior to Case IH red.)

While I admire Gentle Pulverism, it does have one significant drawback. It can only be used successfully by those with a strong feminine nature. Any attempt by a man to use it may be disastrous. The difficulty is that men have a more challenging time creating a world view with them at the center of the Universe. If they slip at any time, they will be defeated and devoured.

You should also know that there is a male version of Pulverism, deriving from the tactics used by Ensign Pulver in the film of the same name. As you will doubtless recall, the good ensign used a rubber band to hurl a ball of lead foil studded with tacks, into the backside of an unsuspecting ship's captain while he was absorbed in watching a movie.

This tactic is eminently suited to men (Remember, caliber counts.), and is extraordinarily effective at terminating arguments.

As many good qualities as that brilliantly convoluted post had, I think you have failed to realize that at a holographic universe level, there is really in the end only one grand and encompassing perspective, which being singular can only be objective as there are no other perspectives to be had, and hence, you are still, eventually but totally, mistaken.

I don't always play in Universes, but when I do, I prefer holographic.

Finally, on a more serious note (Couldn't have been much less serious, could I?), I would like to offer another candidate for the perfect response to everything. It is not as academically serious as Serdigam's worthy masterpiece, but i think it has a certain panache, a joie de vivre, an eau de toilette.

"The fact that you even make that argument proves that you have neither the intellectual capacity, nor moral character, to understand the discussion."

an ill-favoured thing, sir, but mine own;

I hope it's As You Like It.

Have fun.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by FyreByrd

Dear FyreByrd,

How could I have neglected you? Your post: www.abovetopsecret.com...
is brilliant. It is clear and clean, very helpful, and logical.

You point out why examining the premises are so important. It's the old "Garbage in, garbage out" problem. Unfortunately, we often deal with unexamined, indeed unquestionable, premises. Further, some tend to accept them as proven conclusions, setting the stage for the first step of Bulverism, assuming your opponent is wrong. Thank you.

With respect,
Charles1952

charles1952 Doesn't probability require us to say, "Out of one hundred attempts, we will achieve the desired result fifteen times?" How can we possibly know it will be fifteen times until we've discovered that it exists at all?

It is a statement of ATS's most glorious Deny Ignorance aspirations that you have just managed to obliterate my best 'the probability of aliens' argument in a thread that doesn't even have anything to do with aliens.

Now that's a really effective argument, when it wins a debate it's not even part of.

I couldn't have been vanquished by a better man, but I'm going to go eat something with chocolate now.

It's probably been posted already, but I thought I'd chime in.

I've never heard of Bulverism. Interesting. When dealing with "Bulveric" type arguers in a written forum I'd assume you can just use good ol' fashioned logic to ferret them out?

1. Before taking the bait, find out if there's an actual argument to begin with... Categorical syllogism stuff. Is it just an opinion/value statement(s) or is there a conclusion supported by at least 2 verifiable premises?

2. a. Look for obvious informal fallacies and call 'em out. This can potentially stop those tactics (Bulverism?) dead in their tracks right there.
b. And/or tone down the language and restructure their argument into a logical one that they can agree with which can then be formally debated, (this is sometimes a sneaky tactic to take control of your opponent's position).

3. If needed, define their argument more clearly, get rid of the "nots/nons", restructure into positive categorical language, etc.

4. Look for formal fallacies.

5. Is the argument cogent and sound?

Personally, I keep an eye out for all "either/or" statements. They are usually fallacious (false dichotomies).
Anytime someone appeals to something always consider the source.
Of course there's the obvious ad hominems and strawmen.
However people misuse slippery slopes quite a bit. It is a conclusion in which a series of necessary and unlikely events must occur for that conclusion to be true. I usually entertain each event in order to determine their likeliness and spell it out on the board.

Really, the only way to deal with "Bulverism" is to be armed with enough logic to defend yourself. And if the person continues to "troll" around, then maybe it's time to feed it some humble pie. Maybe this is what some might mistake as "Bulveric" tactics, too?

Anyway, interesting ideas!

charles1952
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

Dear FyreByrd,

Thank you very much. Is logic taught anywhere in the US anymore, or is it a specialist course you have to attend college to receive? ATS is a place to learn things, maybe your bit from Dodgson, and Lewis', will be a start.

By the way,

you will so continually rnvounyrt in nookd,

I prefer to do it clothed, myself. But then I always was kind of shy.

With respect,
Charles1952

Wow..just Wow~! Logic.. now there's a subject I've been railed over just for the mere saying of the word....yes.. here on ATS.

Charles, my words could never thank you enough for this thread, but, thanks.

As for you question is Logic even taught in the US any more?

Answer: no,

IMO..and if so, it's not being used to it's fullest. I"m assuming the logic you're speaking of is not computer logic.. which is interesting because it's used so much but we as humans fail to see to use logic to resolve the problem(s) which is 'illogical'

and there's a huge subject that has been at the blunt of bulverisum for a very long time (IMO)

reply to post by charles1952


Hi charles1952,

The premise of your thread is too simplistic for you. Of course there are those who make standard absurd replies to questions asked. You are simply attempting to hide the real reason you posted this. By posing obvious baloney responses in the OP to your "questions" you obfuscate the fact you believe many of the scenarios you provide - setting up anyone who may disagree before they can speak. Bulverism pre-mediated.

CJ

Interesting thread. If I may toss in my $0.02 I think that every topid presented for discussion should be weighed and discussed with as much respect for the OP as the OP himself provides back to the community.

If someone posts obvious bunk and makes fun of topics and other posters then he/she should expect the same in return as they have harmed any credibility they initially had.

I may find some topics silly and other topics profound but I generally try to at least invest some thought into the subject at hand and I'm not willing to do that I simply don't post.

I'm new around here so I don't know the dynamics between members of this community but as a general rule, what I posted above is how I like to cary myself on all message boards I participate on.

That's not to say that I don't sometimes get annoyed and respond to someone in a short and dismissive manner but hopefully those instances are few and far between.

EDIT: It is an absolute shame that logic is something that isn't taught in American schools. It is the one tool that is available to all that allows them to interpret the world (and beyond) in the most factual and clear way.

I found it funny that the OP uses Bulverism in his first post in order to claim "trolls and shills" use it. Isn't starting a point using Bulveristic terms such as those the exact fallacy Bulverism implies? That's rhetorical of course, because the answer is yes.

Bulverism is not a true concept. Everyone is biased in different ways due to their life experiences. As such, one may cherry pick statistics, or use quotes to further their point by those with the same mindset.

For example:

If the OP started a thread stating that we should all be afraid of black dogs and I replied that the OP only states that because he was bitten by a black dog as a child, I could be accused of bulverism. Its hogwash.

Motives are often relevant when evaluating claims, whigh would impact the overall soundness of the argument being presented.

CS Lewis was a racist, misogynist, and was an emotional sadist. HE WAS BIASED. How smarmy of him to come up with such an asinine thoery as Bulverism lol.

He stated he only went to churcv to get communion, he left Christianity to become Atheist, only to become Angelican again. Only he wasn't even Angelican considering he followed the Catholic Doctrine.

Hell, the guy even stated that he would never be happy living among any other people besides WHITE people.

My point is basically this....CS Lewis couldn't even figure out his own life. He cherry picked his arguments and never ever stood by his own principles. Whe people called him out on this, he came up with Bulverism.

If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black, idk what is. So if you want to follow the rantings of an Atheist, racist, who changed his mind about things every day, that's your perogative, but claiming that those who disagree without FACT are shills or trolls make you a friggin hypocrite.

reply to post by TrueBrit


That would be a negative bias, in my perspective. Which, frequently, tends to be due to lack of experience.

I was speaking about positive bias as well. To my perspective, this tends to be derived from experience itself. Now, "experience" is a vague word and many gain different experiences in different ways.

I see that they both tend to intertwine (as all dualities) depending on the perception at hand as well.

I see "bias" as both the individual understanding of the surrounding universe as well as the collective understanding of the surrounding universe. This bias, culturally, tends to be viewed as self-evident. I.E. most cultures throughout history think they have the correct answers to the questions asked, because the answers received are inevitably through whatever cultural context explores them.

Bias can be reduced, to an extent, through a collective assimilation of sorts (think Borg from Star Trek). But, even though they have removed the walls of individuality in that specific culture, they still do not know how the Captain of the Enterprise envisions a chair by the word alone. Through bias, we use that word ("chair") and construct it according to our experience. Whether it takes into account all chairs that ever existed is not likely, nor is it likely that it even matches up between just two individuals, much less the "reality" of the universe.

@Charles;

Its a good question, and once again, shows the topic I am speaking about. The words mean something to each individual. I make a distinction between probability and possibility. Without omniscience, it is to be assumed that, technically, anything is possible. However, the probability of it is a bias based in our current cultural/societal understanding. This bias is frequently used to dismiss things outright without exploration, which is close to the basis of Bulverism as well.

reply to post by charles1952


Thank you, I enjoy your posts as well.

Lewis made comments about Tolkien that I think fit into the Bulverism category. You can look those up if you would like.

Then look at his fiction, God battling evil witches, through God's chosen hero to save the poor people. You don't see the obvious emotional and political motivations behind those stories?

If a mugger is caught, you can usually count on him blaming his troubles in life as an excuse to mug somebody.

I didn't say you were trying to win a debate. I was just joining in on the discussion. Don't we all seek out "Truth, Goodness, and Beauty" on some level?

reply to post by charles1952


A triangle is identified by the structure of 3 of its sides, but there are more sides than the three that give the triangle it's name. At least 8 in my count, and with different triangles, more sides. Take inside and outside into consideration. In a three dimensional world, everything has three sides, but not everything is a triangle.

Doesn't probability require us to say, "Out of one hundred attempts, we will achieve the desired result fifteen times?" How can we possibly know it will be fifteen times until we've discovered that it exists at all?

No, it doesn't. Probability says that on average, a fifteen percent chance means that in a hundred events, it is likely that 15 of those 100 events will result in the desired result, in your hypothetical. It doesn't mean that every 100 events will result in 15 desired outcomes.

reply to post by Flux8

Dear Flux8,

I'm glad you have chimed in, welcome.

It's a dark, drizzly, day here That may be why I have a touch of pessimism in my response to you, even though you are absolutely correct and offer valuable information for all. "good ol' fashioned logic" is indeed the cure, but that depends on at least two assumptions. My pessimistic mood doubts those assumptions are universally valid. Heck, I know they're not universally valid. They are a little more so on ATS, but i despair of their truth in the wider world.

First, it helps if people can spot logical fallacies. I certainly don't know them all, I know a few, but most often I'll read something and say, "Whoa, that's not right," then I have to stop and figure out the problem.

Second, we have to assume that both parties are interested in finding a truth by applying reason and logic. Socrates is still dead, I think, and ATSers still shout. (Let alone politicians and the various media.)

But, really, I like your check list and your willingness to fight fire with gasoline when the situation calls for it. Remember though, destroying an opponent may be fun, but it corrodes two souls. I know, I've been on both sides.

Still, a very nice piece of work and I'm sure I'll refer to it again.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by ColoradoJens

Dear ColoradJens,

It's wonderful to hear from you again. Ahh, 'tis many a fine talk we've had o'er the ale, is it not? But yet, somehow, I have fallen short in your eyes. Let me see what I can do to repair that.

The premise of your thread is too simplistic for you.

Dear ColoradoJens, there is almost nothing too simple for me. Remember, I'm Mr. Confusion?

Of course there are those who make standard absurd replies to questions asked. You are simply attempting to hide the real reason you posted this.

Thank you. While this is not pure Bulverism, it is a step along the way. Hide my real reason? Hardly. My real reason, and I think I may have mentioned it, was to present a common fallacy identified and described by C.S. Lewis with the hopes that it might be used less frequently in our conversations, here and in the world.

By posing obvious baloney responses in the OP to your "questions"

But you have also said "Of course there are those who make standard absurd replies to questions asked." So I don't see why they are to be considered "baloney" responses. Besides, I provided two examples quoted directly from current ATS posts. I believe it to be a real problem.

you obfuscate the fact you believe many of the scenarios you provide - setting up anyone who may disagree before they can speak.

Have you missed the point, or did I fail to communicate it? This was not a thread intended to argue any particular position. If you don't like those, I'll provide some with the opposite responses.

Truly, this was only an attempt to point out a problem in every day thinking. It might appear on any side of any argument. I hope you've noticed that I'm not arguing any position here, nor do I intend to.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by imasheep

Welcome to ATS, soon you'll be able to post your own threads and I hope for a lot of good from you. But as I pointed out earlier, I'm known as Mr. Confusion. Your post only adds to my confusion.

I found it funny that the OP uses Bulverism in his first post in order to claim "trolls and shills" use it. Isn't starting a point using Bulveristic terms such as those the exact fallacy Bulverism implies? That's rhetorical of course, because the answer is yes.

Would you please refer me to anyplace in this thread where I used the words "trolls and shills?" It certainly wasn't in the OP, or anywhere else on the first page. To be honest, I can't recall using the phrase "trolls and shills" anywhere. And if I haven't used it, then what does your first complaint with me rest on?

Bulverism is not a true concept. Everyone is biased in different ways due to their life experiences. As such, one may cherry pick statistics, or use quotes to further their point by those with the same mindset.

Excuse me, but Bulverism has nothing to do with bias or the lack thereof. It's a logical fallacy which may be employed by anyone, biased or not.

If the OP started a thread stating that we should all be afraid of black dogs and I replied that the OP only states that because he was bitten by a black dog as a child, I could be accused of bulverism. Its hogwash.

Why 'hogwash?" The OP would have made a statement and it is then his task to support it. Perhaps scientific studies show that black dogs do have a greater tendency to bite, I don't know. You could be then accused of Bulverism if you said that the OP is wrong because of his earlier experience. That is not evidence of the truth or falsity of the OP's satement.

Motives are often relevant when evaluating claims, whigh would impact the overall soundness of the argument being presented.

I would rather evaluate the accuracy of the claim, not the motive. Certainly, some one may have a motive to say "X," but the question at hand is, is "X" true or false?

From there on in your post, beginning with

CS Lewis was a racist, . . .

You present a particularly ugly ad hominem which has no bearing whatsoever on the value of the concept of Bulverism.

I don't know why you hate Lewis with such a passion, and to be honest, I don't care to know. It has no relevance to this thread. I have read many, many of his works, and there is nothing in them which I can see that supports your argument.

but claiming that those who disagree without FACT are shills or trolls make you a friggin hypocrite.

As pointed out above, but which perhaps bears repeating, I have never made that claim, nor did Lewis.

reply to post by poet1b

Dear poet1b,

Thank you for bringing that point up. It is important.

Then look at his fiction, God battling evil witches, through God's chosen hero to save the poor people. You don't see the obvious emotional and political motivations behind those stories?

Dagnab it. I can't remember the name of the essay he wrote about critics assigning motivations and describing his psychological processes in writing his fiction. What I do remember was the astonishment he expressed over the fact that every single explanation from a critic which he saw, 100%, was wrong. He couldn't believe they all were in error all the time.

But fighting against Bulverism isn't appropriate everywhere. Especially in fiction, explaining why a hero did something is sometimes more important than describing what he did. I'm sure Lewis used emotional tools, but there is nothing necessarily "Bulveristic" in that.

If a mugger is caught, you can usually count on him blaming his troubles in life as an excuse to mug somebody.

You're quite right. The only way I can see Bulverism entering into this would be society's claim that it is wrong to mug someone, followed by the mugger's claim that society only says that to keep down the poor.

I didn't say you were trying to win a debate. I was just joining in on the discussion.

Then please forgive me. I misunderstood.

Don't we all seek out "Truth, Goodness, and Beauty" on some level?

Were I to believe that, I would dance in the streets with delight and be the gayest of men. (Yes, I'm upset that I can no longer use that word. I don't believe I will ever forgive the theft of that lovely, useful word. The language is poorer for it's loss.)

Lewis made comments about Tolkien that I think fit into the Bulverism category. You can look those up if you would like.

They were both fascinating men, members of The Inklings if I recall. I may do that. Do you happen to remember an example?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by poet1b

Dear poet1b,

Thank you a hundred times over.

Poet1b IS RIGHT. I WAS WRONG. SORRY.

My description of probability was incorrect.

No, it doesn't. Probability says that on average, a fifteen percent chance means that in a hundred events, it is likely that 15 of those 100 events will result in the desired result, in your hypothetical. It doesn't mean that every 100 events will result in 15 desired outcomes.

Thanks for the correction.

But even with that correction, we must know that a thing will happen if given a reasonable number of trials. I believe that science currently describes "impossible" as something occurring fewer than 1 time in 50 million. Of course philosophy has a different definition.

A triangle is identified by the structure of 3 of its sides, but there are more sides than the three that give the triangle it's name. At least 8 in my count, and with different triangles, more sides. Take inside and outside into consideration. In a three dimensional world, everything has three sides, but not everything is a triangle.

Here the problem is the definition of "side." Even if the man was wrong and a triangle has umptyleben million sides, the wife's response, "Oh, you say that because you're a man," is Bulverism.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952



I have to interject a little 'reason' here. I think what has been call 'good ole fashion' logic is a misnomer.

Reason and Logic are two different things.

Logic - as CS Lewis wrote about. As propounded (?) by Aristote, Euclid, Boole, etc. is binarying.

The first rule of logic is that a statement is or is not. Period - no probablity of is or not is - just one or the other - binary.

I would call logic a subset of reason (of which statistics and probablity are another subset)

Therefore: REASON = LOGIC + PROBABLITY + STATISTICS + EXPERIENCE + etc.

Reason is used to determine the validity of a starting premise.

However the logic of an argument may be valid even with inaccurate premies:

Here are two examples of valid arguments:

If Joe is late for work, then he will get fired.
Joe was late for work
Joe got fired


All stars are bodies that shine steadily.
All planets are stars.
All planets are bodies that shine steadily.

The second of these arguments has a false premise. But it is still valid.

personal.bellevuecollege.edu...

Lewis' Buverism is about jumping to evaluating the conclusion of an argument without examing the Logic (the arithmetic in his accounts example) first. Without checking the logic, you can't disprove even an erroneous conclusion. It is a common mistake, one I tend to make and see others make as well (hence the current reading).

reply to post by FyreByrd

Dear FyreByrd,

Thank you, thank you.

You're right. My vision was getting a little cloudy because I was confusing things in my mind. I wish everyone on ATS could take a look at your post and think about it for a few minutes.

Hey! I've got an idea! Would you consider a thread on reason and logic for dummies? We have enough against us as it is without embracing sloppy thinking. (I do it sometimes, I just don't embrace it.)

With respect,
Charles1952