One think that troubles me is this: I can see myself arguing vigorously about a topic trying to stay as close to the truth as I can, with my understanding of it. But I don't know everything (which I am happily admiting) yet there also might be some unidentified falsehoods in my beliefs. I also think that, in some way I do argue my point to impress other people or rather convince them of my reasonableness. Does that mean I am susceptible to being a "bullshiter" myself? Cause I don't want to do that, but it was said that intent doesn't matter.
Well, that's pretty much every human out there and exactly what makes conversation fun. It's not a bad thing if you're doing it for the sake of conversation. The intention doesn't change the fact that it's bullshit, but it does say a lot about the person spewing the bullshit. It only becomes bad if you are doing it with the intent of hiding the truth, imo.
You are not a "bulshitter" but you are saying "bullshit". The latter can imply that you can change. Identifying that you are BSing is the first step on not BSing. Also be openminded enough to change your POV.
Mental states can certainly be visible. The human face is incredibly expressive and there is an entire science built around it though it isn't a common skill at least at any professional level.
It's bullshit to say we each contribute our share of bullshit. Some people cause vastly more than others and some are actively and intentionally bullshit negative.
Thank you for this course! You tube is actually one of the places where lots of bullwhip is being spread. This course had actual value and I'm happy to have spend my time on it.
Not sure if the definition of performative utterances is ok. A guy yells "Fire!" That's both a description (there's fire) and an action (alerting). Performative utterances can be descriptive. As such, they might also be true or false.
I don't think your example fits. "I declare a fire!" would work. If someone said that, your response could be, "Yes, you did just declare that." No truth or falsehood, just a performance. If there was a fire, the performance would jibe with reality. But if there was no fire, then you could look strangely at the person and wonder about their alternative reality... but you can't debate that they just performed those words.
What about saying "there's the door" when you're telling someone to get out of your office? That's a description as well as an act (of telling him to get out of the office). The contention that performative utterances can be truth-evaluable is not a new thing, e.g., Sinnott-Armstrong, Reimer, Searle, according to the SEP. Also, see Lying, Misleading, and What is Said by Jennifer Saul.
That's too fast. First, Searle certainly thinks that performative utterances have truth-value, according to the very Wiki article you posted. Second, performative utterances can be implicit. See "Lying, Misleading, and What is Said" by Jennifer Saul. Third, what you gave was an assertion, not an argument.
Furthermore, the example I provided (i.e., "There's the door") is a classic example used in Philosophy of Language as an instance of what Grice himself considers the "flauting" of his Maxim of Relation. It's part and parcel of Speech Act Theory, which you should read up on on more reputable sites such as SEP.
I find the argument that "I call bullshit" is a performative utterance to be unpersuasive, or, at least, the dichotomy that is seemingly on offer (than something is either a performative utterance or an implication) to be false. Calling BS is an performative act, to be sure, but one that directly implies a descriptive property of what is being discussed: that it is, in some manner, false or disingenuous. That description may or may not be true - one does not simply get to call bullshit like one gets to christen a ship.
Hmmm... not sure how to properly translate "I call bullshit" in other languages. It's clearly a performative utterance in English, but how would it be in Spanish, for instance. In my language you could say "I think you're eating shit" or "I think that is shit" or "I declare it shit" but these sound less performative and more like declaring opinions.
Teach the Trivium learning method. Grammar Logic and Reasoning. Critical thinking skills. Workshops with hands on learning. Speak with your students never at them, encourage thinking outside the box along with spontaneous problem solving skills. The best form for the transfer of information is through Music, Math and Symbolism. Be well.
We'll be putting the whole course (10 lectures) online over the next couple of months.. The course on-going now and we'll be posting roughly one lecture a week as we finish editing, production, and closed captioning.
Your bullshit definition says that the presentation is intended to impress the audience; does that mean you agree with the idea that the presenter's intention is defining of bullshit?
"How do you call bullshit on anything that needs bullshit called upon it?" - What a wonderful lesson to be taught at an university. Classic
One think that troubles me is this:
I can see myself arguing vigorously about a topic trying to stay as close to the truth as I can, with my understanding of it.
But I don't know everything (which I am happily admiting) yet there also might be some unidentified falsehoods in my beliefs.
I also think that, in some way I do argue my point to impress other people or rather convince them of my reasonableness.
Does that mean I am susceptible to being a "bullshiter" myself?
Cause I don't want to do that, but it was said that intent doesn't matter.
Well, that's pretty much every human out there and exactly what makes conversation fun. It's not a bad thing if you're doing it for the sake of conversation. The intention doesn't change the fact that it's bullshit, but it does say a lot about the person spewing the bullshit. It only becomes bad if you are doing it with the intent of hiding the truth, imo.
You are not a "bulshitter" but you are saying "bullshit". The latter can imply that you can change. Identifying that you are BSing is the first step on not BSing. Also be openminded enough to change your POV.
The correct and appropriate target is bullshitters, not bullshit, for essentially the same reason that we should be worried about shooters, not guns.
Mental states can certainly be visible. The human face is incredibly expressive and there is an entire science built around it though it isn't a common skill at least at any professional level.
It's bullshit to say we each contribute our share of bullshit. Some people cause vastly more than others and some are actively and intentionally bullshit negative.
I would LOVE to teach a class like this on my campus.
Well Done!
Joker🃏: I'd rather be a liar than a bull $hitter. Batman🧛: I'd rather be a bull$hitter than a liar.
Old-old-school name for 'bullshit': Rhetoric.
Bullshit has been around for a long time.
Thank you for this course! You tube is actually one of the places where lots of bullwhip is being spread. This course had actual value and I'm happy to have spend my time on it.
Please tell me you guys don't think words are violence.
Thanks a lot for this ocurse that can help each of us, wherever we come from!
Not sure if the definition of performative utterances is ok. A guy yells "Fire!" That's both a description (there's fire) and an action (alerting). Performative utterances can be descriptive. As such, they might also be true or false.
I don't think your example fits. "I declare a fire!" would work. If someone said that, your response could be, "Yes, you did just declare that." No truth or falsehood, just a performance. If there was a fire, the performance would jibe with reality. But if there was no fire, then you could look strangely at the person and wonder about their alternative reality... but you can't debate that they just performed those words.
What about saying "there's the door" when you're telling someone to get out of your office? That's a description as well as an act (of telling him to get out of the office). The contention that performative utterances can be truth-evaluable is not a new thing, e.g., Sinnott-Armstrong, Reimer, Searle, according to the SEP. Also, see Lying, Misleading, and What is Said by Jennifer Saul.
That's too fast. First, Searle certainly thinks that performative utterances have truth-value, according to the very Wiki article you posted. Second, performative utterances can be implicit. See "Lying, Misleading, and What is Said" by Jennifer Saul. Third, what you gave was an assertion, not an argument.
Furthermore, the example I provided (i.e., "There's the door") is a classic example used in Philosophy of Language as an instance of what Grice himself considers the "flauting" of his Maxim of Relation. It's part and parcel of Speech Act Theory, which you should read up on on more reputable sites such as SEP.
I find the argument that "I call bullshit" is a performative utterance to be unpersuasive, or, at least, the dichotomy that is seemingly on offer (than something is either a performative utterance or an implication) to be false. Calling BS is an performative act, to be sure, but one that directly implies a descriptive property of what is being discussed: that it is, in some manner, false or disingenuous. That description may or may not be true - one does not simply get to call bullshit like one gets to christen a ship.
what is that tune that plays in the beginning and the end of these videos?
"Sandstorm" by Darude
A crash course on how to manipulate people for dummies, just call it "bullshit".
thank you for uploading this. very good.
Hmmm... not sure how to properly translate "I call bullshit" in other languages. It's clearly a performative utterance in English, but how would it be in Spanish, for instance.
In my language you could say "I think you're eating shit" or "I think that is shit" or "I declare it shit" but these sound less performative and more like declaring opinions.
The fecal aspect is secondary to the flim-flam and bamboozling.
This is fantastic work. Makes me very proud to be a UW alum!
PALAHNIUK: "Your life is a mistake that you'll spend the rest of your life trying to correct."
Do ya think it would be a fascinating information if mythbusyers, credit bureaus, and it's have in common
Remember This, Bullshit Comes With Retirement.
A Relaxed, & Assure State Of Mind.
This is wonderful! Thanks for this!
4:04 -- Mic brought down as requested and ... WOW. What a difference. Sounds great now, guys!
Requiring people to treat each other with respect is bullshit. Respect cannot be required, it can only be deserved, or not.
respect has to be reciprocal. sorry guys
May I license this and teach it in Brazil? I know a bit premature, but this is so relevant here.
will do. I will presume it is Bullshit and that you left out the í accidentally, or are you being PC :)
No, there is no "i" in the address because gmail doesn't allow curse words in addresses.
I thought that might be the case and was going to use both addresses, but thanks for clarifying. Currently watching 2.3
Teach the Trivium learning method. Grammar Logic and Reasoning. Critical thinking skills. Workshops with hands on learning. Speak with your students never at them, encourage thinking outside the box along with spontaneous problem solving skills. The best form for the transfer of information is through Music, Math and Symbolism. Be well.
What about the rest of the course? Is there any plan to upload it or is it available on-line elsewhere? Thanks for doing this...
We'll be putting the whole course (10 lectures) online over the next couple of months.. The course on-going now and we'll be posting roughly one lecture a week as we finish editing, production, and closed captioning.
Oh, fantastic! This is a true public service (and it covers my ass for calling bullshit so much on social media, so there's that). Kudos!
The speaker took four minutes to acknowledge t irritating interference? Wow.
Your bullshit definition says that the presentation is intended to impress the audience; does that mean you agree with the idea that the presenter's intention is defining of bullshit?
is all philosophy bs?
No, because they try to arrive to the truth having the premises they think of at that moment as truth.
The early philosophers created our government
God
You start off by saying OK SO and then try and lecture on bullshit ! funnyyyyyy. To compound that you use the bore by Powerpoint method !
All this talk about bullshit and nobody brings up the cow even once.
Bullpoop
The shit of the bull (stole it from 1791L)
Or is this lecture just MORE bullshit...?? jk