What’s all the Bullshit?
One thing we can all agree with (even more so now than when Frankfurt published) is that our world Is full of bullshit. Whether it is another meaningless argument between politicians or a family friend attempting to sell you their latest pyramid scheme, we are all confronted with BS.
“But what’s so bad about bullshit?” Frankfurt, a well-established philosopher, released his short pamphlet attempting to answer this question in 2005. To Frankfurt, Bullshit is especially disconcerting, more even than lying. Lying leaves the perpetrator with one option: to tell something completely opposed to the truth. The speaker must know the truth and intend to claim something different. Bullshitting, however, allows much more room for creativity as the bullshitter can say anything they want to get to some ends without being boxed into avoiding the truth. The bullshitter displays what Frankfurt refers to as a “laxity” of truth values, meaning the truth is irrelevant to them; all that matters is that they get to the goal of their bullshit (think of the partisan hack making broad unfalsifiable claims about how the science against climate change is strong).
Another reason Frankfurt looks to bullshit as being more dangerous than lying is the social repercussions for doing so. When someone lies, their claims can be subsequently proven false; instead of the politician gesturing to the idea that there is evidence to the contrary of climate science if they were to say, “No scientists support the science of human-caused climate change,” one Google search could dispel this myth. When one bullshits, it can be much harder to pin them down on a falsehood because they never came out and claimed some false fact; instead, they mince words and twist conversations to get what they want. When confronted on these issues, Frankfurt claims we hold liars' feet to the fire when they are caught, but when we get bullshitted, we tend to roll our eyes and move on.
This seems compelling. We all know some of these actors personally, so what’s the issue? Well, Frankfurt makes some stronger claims in his book that, upon reflection, fail to hold up.
Issues with Bullshit
Frankfurt takes his claim further, essentially stating that the bullshitter is inadvertently causing themselves to be less intelligent. Over time, the bullshitter will erode all ability to discern truth from fiction, rendering them unable to effectively manipulate and thus create a cyclical epistemology that is self-defeating.
This argument seems far-fetched, however. (1) the assertion that bullshitters have no regard for the truth seems indefensible, and (2) the idea that bullshitting makes one less intelligent has no empirical backing and thus can be disregarded.
Take, for instance, the political pundit mentioned earlier; this same politician is incentivized to sell alternative medicine to her followers. She would first have to recognize that she’s selling a product that goes against the standard prescription agreed upon in society (a truthful recognition). She would also have to acknowledge what kind of rhetoric is necessary to sell the medicine she is pushing. Nothing matters if she holds no regard for the truth, and it is all subjective to her. She has to be indifferent to the best method of selling the most products. This line of logic could be taken infinitely (she has to accept the truth of said product existing, what is the right amount to sell the product for to make the most profit without making it cost so much that no one will pay for it, etc.); it seems unlikely that a bullshitter with complete lack of respect for the truth is an extreme rarity, which goes against the point of Frankfurts argument (bullshit is rampant in our society and why it’s so dangerous).
Although these objections seem to shoot holes through Frankfurt’s argument, his conclusion (bullshit is more dangerous than lying) can still be saved.
Reviving the Bullshit
Bullshit artists, as Frankfurt calls them, may not have any regard for the truth for them to be effective in reaching their goals. Still, they institute an epistemic norm that can erode truth further than outright lying and thus reach Frankfurt’s ultimate conclusion.
Let's set up an analogy; imagine you are arguing with a friend at a business party. Your friend has made some strange claims about Jewish people recently, and you start to confront him on these issues. Let's take this down two routes: (1) Your friend comes right out and says he thinks Jewish people are ruling the world through a secret plot in Hollywood, and (2) your friend dog whistles in broad sweeping generality that never commits him to any fully incriminating statements. In the first case, 99% of the people hear this and will see your friend as antisemitic, lose respect for him, and may put his job at risk. In the second case, your friend may get some bizarre looks, but it will be impossible to pin him down on anything as he could always retort, “What? I never said that!”.
You may think, “But isn’t the lie clearly more dangerous rhetoric?”It may well be the case that the lie itself is more dangerous, but the impact of the bullshit will lead to more erosion. The climate denier can elucidate another example to hammer this home. If a politician exclaims, “No scientist believes climate change is occurring from human beings,” a single Google search will refute this claim (or even ask a scientist yourself). Whereas when the politician says, “Well, many climate scientists believe that we are contributing irreparable damage to the earth, but many scientists have alternative motives for their beliefs. I'm not sure why. Maybe they are paid off, or maybe the left fabricates things, not sure.” If you try to claim that he said scientists are lying about climate change, the politician can wash their hands and claim innocence of the charge, “ I never said that!”
Alex Jones takes stand in 2nd defamation trial over Sandy Hook hoax claims. Source:https://abcnews.go.com/US/alex-jones-takes-stand-2nd-defamation-trial-sandy/story?id=90327116
If this still isn't clear, think of cases in the real world. Alex Jones, the political pundent never actually said “the parents of the kids supposedly killed at Sandy Hook, are lying about the whole thing! Those kids never existed! Its all a sham made up to pass gun control laws!” Ironically for Jones if the governement set up this whole conspiracy, they only thing hes unvield was their incompetence, as a decade later the rates of gun violence have only risen but I digress. Instead, Jones said things like “Folks, we got to get private investigators up to Sandy Hook right now. Because I’m telling you this -this stinks to highest heaven.” Clearly implying that the whole thing was a sham, but never outright stating it. Now, in this case, Jones, in fact, did do enough to get sued for practically all his worth. However, this is one example, and lawsuit or not, Jones bullshitted hisous conspiracy causing massive harm to the families way into a hein and convincing his fans to harrass them relentlessly.
How to Sift the Bullshit?
Is there a lot of bullshit in our society? the answer is obvious; the solution, however, is much less palpable.
Frankfurt may have failed on his premises, but his conclusion nonetheless remains steadfast. Bullshit is rampant in our society, and it is more dangerous than outright lying. Countless social media ‘influencers,’ political pundits, podcast hosts, and so-called “self-help gurus” spread thousands of hours of bullshit straight to the cell phones of our loved ones. We all have family members that have fallen prey to the bullshit of online content intending to push an agenda or create drama and popularity.
So what do we do? Social media companies have attempted to flag posts with “mis/disinformation” and put some sort of reader's guide to what the experts have to say on any given subject. This is a good start, but the issue prevails nonetheless. Deplatforming bullshitters contests a whole debate that goes beyond the scope of this conversation, but there is some evidence to suggest deplatforming these individuals just validates their queer beliefs.
What needs to be done is the implementation of better epistemic norms in our society. Epistemic norms, including media literacy, critical thinking skills, and the promotion of intellectual virtues, would likely decrease the susceptibility of the general public to fall into these schemes. Education, including critical thinking skills, could be grafted into our curriculum at young ages. The promotion of intellectual virtues such as open-mindedness, curiosity, and willingness to change one’s mind in light of new evidence would yield similar results. Teaching students how to evaluate sources, recognize biases, and differentiate between credible information and misinformation would be infinitely virtuous.
Frankfurt identified this issue over two decades ago, yet the issue has only grown worse since then. It's time we implement better epistemic norms into our resources and stop shoveling hay into the bull’s mouths.