Fact, Fiction, Lies, and [censored]

[email hidden] wrote:

[something fearfully suspicious]

Dear Jobst,

Here's one for you:

Richard Hofstadter, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics."

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

jobst.brandt said:

I have always been puzzled at the public appetite for [censored],
without having a clear definition of the term. Bryan Appleyard's
article points us to Mr. Frankfurt, who wrote a treatise of the
nature of what we refer to as BS as opposed to untruth or lies.

I read a review of Frankfurt's book ("On [censored]", published by
Princeton U. Press), and decided I had to have a copy. When it arrived
(less than $10 from Amazon), I found that it appeared to be an example of
its subject. This "book" is a 50-page pamphlet, with large print.
Reading through it you get the impression that Frankfurt is not really
defining the title term, but is bullshitting about it. But in the end,
you do get the idea of what he means; [censored] is an argument that is
formed with no concern about truth or falsehood, but instead is concerned
with the impact the argument will have. If you can "score points" with a
flurry of numbers or references, you win, regardless of whether or not the
numbers are real or the references relevant. He distinguishes [censored]
from lies in that a lie is told with knowledge of, and so concern for, the
truth, in an attempt to mislead the audience. The bullshitter
doesn't care whether his audience is mislead or not, just so he comes out
ahead.

To put this remotely close to on-topic, an ad for boutique wheels will
claim that because of the tripled-spoke pattern (as opposed to mere
paired-spoke patterns), the wheels will be faster, stiffer, and more
comfortable. This is [censored]. [censored] because they don't care whether
or not the wheels are any of those things. They want to sell you the
wheels. Once your credit card is charged, they win. You then have a pair
of perfectly adequate (one hopes) but in no way superior wheels, for which
you paid $2000. You then rave to your buddies about how much faster you
are, and how stiff the wheels are, but how soft at the same time. This is
also [censored]; the goal you have is to convince your buddies that you
aren't a fool too easily parted from his money.

Quoted message said:

Political correctness is a disease that insists on diluting any message
to a level of blandness that makes clear thinking and conclusion a
fault; a recipe for [censored].

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

If there is any meaning, you have to find
it between the lines and it is your meaning not that of the author.

Because the author's intent is independent of the meaning of what he says.

Quoted message said:

This
mumble over time creates a thirst for straight talk, but while straight
talk may be stylistically refreshing, it is also susceptible to [censored]
and lies. So the identification and rejection of [censored] remains a
responsibility of the individual's logic and common sense.

Well, to a degree. Straight talk is not conducive to [censored]; if you
simply say something is so, then it either is or is not, and you stand or
fall on the truth of the matter. The bullshitter is trying to get you to
think he knows something he doesn't, and he wins if he convinces you.
Just making a concise statement won't convince anyone independently of
their own ability to verify the statement.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Accept risk. Accept responsibility. Put a lawyer out of
_`\(,_ | business.
(_)/ (_) |

you should post this in the high-audio groups. They love to wallow in
their own excrement over there.

remember burroughs? no not the typewriter guy-the other burroughs-
he wrote about animal behavior and biology before animal behavior and
biology existed
and it was a real strain.
that's the way it reads.
empirical data is hard to get when there isn't any.
but its anti BS
T.Roosevelt got behind it.
their bike riding history is unknown at this time

Quoted message said:

I came across an appropriate web page essay that could be recommended
applied philosophy reading:

--------------------------

I have always been puzzled at the public appetite for [censored],
without having a clear definition of the term. Bryan Appleyard's
article points us to Mr. Frankfurt, who wrote a treatise of the
nature of what we refer to as BS as opposed to untruth or lies.

This "essay" seems all over the map. I take Mr. Appleyard with a grain
of salt, apparently he believes in UFO's. Too bad nothing was linked,
what's the web for otherwise?

The Mr. Frankfut reference is discussed in this Slate magazine article,
which I think is a bit more coherent:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2114268/

A principal thesis, according to the article, is that [censored] is worse
than lies since it reveals an indifference to the truth rather than a
frank effort to replace the truth with a falshood. I don't know, I'm
not a philosopher, sounds like [censored] to me, though.

Is it ignorance or apathy
The worried will all disagree
Some say life isn't fair
Hell I don't know and I don't care

Was that an example of BS?

It almost started to make sense in a couple places...

someone said:

you should post this in the high-audio groups. They love to wallow
in their own excrement over there.

Along that line, here in Palo Alto, we have a HiFi store that for many
years had no front window and only a plain text black and white sign
inside the glass door: "The Audible Difference" which BS detectors
translated to "The Inaudible Difference" or "The Audible Indifference"

[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

I came across an appropriate web page essay that could be recommended
applied philosophy reading:

--------------------------

I have always been puzzled at the public appetite for [censored],
without having a clear definition of the term. Bryan Appleyard's
article points us to Mr. Frankfurt, who wrote a treatise of the
nature of what we refer to as BS as opposed to untruth or lies.

The first guy I met who had zero tolerance for [censored] was Harold
Geneen, who in his fine book Managing focused on the difference
between facts, opinions or guesses. Geneen, like Sergeant Friday,
usually wanted the facts. When he wanted your opinion, he would let
you know. If you offered a guess or opinion when he asked a question
to which there was a factual answer, he would make you wish you had
said "I don't know", an answer he respected, unless it was something
you should know. He had the keenest nose for speculation and there
was no bullshitting this guy. As a result, his business meetings and
discussions tended to get to grips with issues in a hurry. His
incredible memory for data enabled him to catch the close guesser more
often than was healthy for the chancer.

Currently reading Wild Swans, which recounts what China went through
starting with Japanese occupation of Manchuria, the Kuomintang, Mao's
follies and beyond. This has to be the ultimate demonstration of
humanity's penchant for swallowing [censored] built on lies. But the
[censored] is, as Appleyard's summary and Frankfurt's little book make
clear, more dangerous than lies, because the misrepresentation is
about the hidden agenda of the bullshitter as opposed to what he makes
it seem.

Political correctness is a disease that insists on diluting any
message to a level of blandness that makes clear thinking and
conclusion a fault; a recipe for [censored]. If there is any meaning,
you have to find it between the lines and it is your meaning not that
of the author. This mumble over time creates a thirst for straight
talk, but while straight talk may be stylistically refreshing, it is
also susceptible to [censored] and lies. So the identification and
rejection of [censored] remains a responsibility of the individual's
logic and common sense.

--------------------------

[email hidden]

er, isn't this a mr. stone wannabe trying to make out like he's not
really mr. glasshouse?

And here's yet another paper on the topic of scientific BS or
self-deception. Probably the definitive paper on the subject, and
definitly my favorite.

http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~ken/Langmuir/langmuir.htm

"On December 18, 1953, Dr. Irving Langmuir gave a colloquium at the
Research Laboratory that will long be remembered by those in his
audience. The talk was concerned with what Langmuir called "the science
of things that aren't so," and in it he gave a colorful account of
several examples of a particular kind of pitfall into which scientists
may sometimes stumble.

....

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:

[something fearfully suspicious]

Dear Jobst,

Here's one for you:

Richard Hofstadter, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics."

"Peter Cole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

This "essay" seems all over the map. I take Mr. Appleyard

with a grain

Quoted message said:

of salt, apparently he believes in UFO's. Too bad nothing

was linked,

Quoted message said:

what's the web for otherwise?

The Mr. Frankfut reference is discussed in this Slate

magazine article,

Quoted message said:

which I think is a bit more coherent:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2114268/

A principal thesis, according to the article, is that

[censored] is worse

Quoted message said:

than lies since it reveals an indifference to the truth

rather than a

Quoted message said:

frank effort to replace the truth with a falshood. I don't

know, I'm

Quoted message said:

not a philosopher, sounds like [censored] to me, though.

In the advertising world, there is truth, there is deception
(lies) and there is something called puffery. Puffery is when
you make a (probably false) claim that is allowable because no
reasonable person would believe it. An example would be a hot
dog stand claiming "World's Best Hot Dogs", when there is no
way to verify the claim, or the implied puffery of beer ads
which seem to imply a close connection between their brand of
beer and beautiful women. Of course, ads like this work (if
they do) because at some level we want to give some credence
to the claims.

Puffery would pretty much fill the bill as "[censored]", but
morally (and legally) it's much more innocent than a lie. Not
entirely innocent, of course. People must occasionally buy
those auto-shifting bikes off the [censored] infomercials, or
they wouldn't put on the infomercials. [reaching for some bike
content here]

The example of [censored] which begins the Slate article Peter
cites, "Your call is important to us", is either a polite
fiction (a white lie) or puffery -- or perhaps true. This
[censored] is certainly harmless and hardly fooling anybody. To
put this in the same realm as some of the great political lies
of my lifetime [*] is to trivialize the evil involved in the
lies.

--
Mike Kruger
Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is
no path and leave a trail.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson, writing before the mountain bike was
invented.

[*] Great political lies of my lifetime: where to start?
To be bipartisan, we have Clinton's "I did not have sex with
that woman" and GW's claim about WMD's in Iraq.
But I'm barely old enough to have been born while Stalin was
still alive and have to award him the lifetime achievement
award in the "liar" category.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you should post this in the high-audio groups. They love to wallow
in their own excrement over there.

Along that line, here in Palo Alto, we have a HiFi store that for many
years had no front window and only a plain text black and white sign
inside the glass door: "The Audible Difference" which BS detectors
translated to "The Inaudible Difference" or "The Audible Indifference"

Yeah, well you might not be so skeptical when you replace your standard
computer wiring with the new stuff from Monster Cable. Then just try and
tell me there's no difference between one cable and another. Oh sure, you'll
claim that any difference must be quantifiable, and the fact that a Monster
Cable gives exactly the same mileage & speed readings means you don't need
it. That's just closed-minded thinking. Your bike computer will never work
better than it does with a Monster Cable wiring harness.

[Sorry Sheldon, I claim this one first. Maybe this post should have waited
until 4/01/06?]

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Mike Kruger said:

In the advertising world, there is truth, there is deception
(lies) and there is something called puffery. Puffery is when
you make a (probably false) claim that is allowable because no
reasonable person would believe it. An example would be a hot
dog stand claiming "World's Best Hot Dogs", when there is no
way to verify the claim, or the implied puffery of beer ads
which seem to imply a close connection between their brand of
beer and beautiful women. Of course, ads like this work (if
they do) because at some level we want to give some credence
to the claims.

I think there is a difference between puffery and [censored]. No one really
gives credence to a claim of "world's best hot dog", but some seem to be
snapped up by a motor oil that claims to have polarized molecules that
adhere to engine parts (I am _not_ making this up). The former is
puffery, the latter is [censored].

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Enron's slogan: Respect, Communication, Integrity, and
_`\(,_ | Excellence.
(_)/ (_) |

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I came across an appropriate web page essay that could be recommended
applied philosophy reading:

You should also check out Michael Shermer's, yes the former RAAM rider, book
"Why People Believe Weird Things". I have long been fascinated why
otherwise smart people fall for things such as Astrology, New Age healing,
pseudo science, God, etc.

Tim McTeague

David L. Johnson said:

Mike Kruger said:

In the advertising world, there is truth, there is deception
(lies) and there is something called puffery. Puffery is when
you make a (probably false) claim that is allowable because no
reasonable person would believe it. An example would be a hot
dog stand claiming "World's Best Hot Dogs", when there is no
way to verify the claim, or the implied puffery of beer ads
which seem to imply a close connection between their brand of
beer and beautiful women. Of course, ads like this work (if
they do) because at some level we want to give some credence
to the claims.

I think there is a difference between puffery and [censored]. No one really
gives credence to a claim of "world's best hot dog", but some seem to be
snapped up by a motor oil that claims to have polarized molecules that
adhere to engine parts (I am _not_ making this up). The former is
puffery, the latter is [censored].

but david, virtually every vehicle engine oil on the market today is a
detergent oil. they're not stuff you'd do your laundry with, but
nevertheless these detergents /do/ have polar molecules & they /do/
adsorb to a surface. you're absolutely correct that a lot of marketing
material appears, er, "confused" on this subject, but be assured that
detergent oils are very real and /do/ "adhere to engine parts".

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you should post this in the high-audio groups. They love to wallow
in their own excrement over there.

Along that line, here in Palo Alto, we have a HiFi store that for many
years had no front window and only a plain text black and white sign
inside the glass door: "The Audible Difference" which BS detectors
translated to "The Inaudible Difference" or "The Audible Indifference"

Yeah, well you might not be so skeptical when you replace your standard
computer wiring with the new stuff from Monster Cable. Then just try and
tell me there's no difference between one cable and another. Oh sure, you'll
claim that any difference must be quantifiable, and the fact that a Monster
Cable gives exactly the same mileage & speed readings means you don't need
it. That's just closed-minded thinking. Your bike computer will never work
better than it does with a Monster Cable wiring harness.

[Sorry Sheldon, I claim this one first. Maybe this post should have waited
until 4/01/06?]

Mike, don't forget it's gotta have oxygen-free copper. How can you
race without oxygen-free copper?

Mark "Fabrizio would be horrified" Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Andy Heninger said:

And here's yet another paper on the topic of scientific BS or
self-deception. Probably the definitive paper on the subject, and
definitly my favorite.

Quoted message said:

http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~ken/Langmuir/langmuir.htm

and another:

http://www.ems.psu.edu/%7Efraser/BadScience.html

[email hidden]

David L. Johnson said:

Quoted message said:

In the advertising world, there is truth, there is deception (lies)
and there is something called puffery. Puffery is when you make a
(probably false) claim that is allowable because no reasonable
person would believe it. An example would be a hot dog stand
claiming "World's Best Hot Dogs", when there is no way to verify
the claim, or the implied puffery of beer ads which seem to imply a
close connection between their brand of beer and beautiful women.
Of course, ads like this work (if they do) because at some level we
want to give some credence to the claims.

Quoted message said:

I think there is a difference between puffery and [censored]. No one
really gives credence to a claim of "world's best hot dog", but some
seem to be snapped up by a motor oil that claims to have polarized
molecules that adhere to engine parts (I am _not_ making this up).
The former is puffery, the latter is [censored].

Beyond that, we probably all know people in whose tales we have little
belief because we know them to be bullshitters, known in German as
"Hochstapler" 'one who piles high' and the allusion to [censored] is there.
The trouble is that unless that person has stepped into a field of
ones expertise, proof of this tendency doesn't immediately surface.
Once defrocked, the BS artist has a hard row to hoe in convincing
those who are aware, something BS artists does not recognize, just as
scam artists are often the biggest suckers, not having a sense for
truth.

It's the problem of "I was lying then but I'm telling the truth now."
Oh yeah!

[email hidden]

Tim McTeague said:

Quoted message said:

I came across an appropriate web page essay that could be
recommended applied philosophy reading:

....

Quoted message said:

You should also check out Michael Shermer's, yes the former RAAM
rider, book "Why People Believe Weird Things". I have long been
fascinated why otherwise smart people fall for things such as
Astrology, New Age healing, pseudo science, God, etc.

or Scientology... or Jim Jones and Peoples Temple!

[email hidden]

Jim Smith said:

Quoted message said:

Holy cow!

http://www.cryogenicsinternational.com

Sorry, I said 4 Kelvin, but I guess it's "only" 77 Kelvin. Of
course, that makes all the difference in the world! 🙂

Greg