Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

`On Bullshit` is one of my favorite things I've ever read but it's frustrating that this paper simultaneously cites `On Bullshit` while immediately defining bullshit in a way that does not conform almost at all with the `On Bullshit`

This article starts out by defining bullshitters and therefore bullshit as: "‘Bullshitters’ are individuals who claim knowledge or expertise in an area where they actually have little experience or skill. "

They at least somewhat remedy this by mentioning the better partial definition used in `On Bullshit` which is shared with the word "humbug": "deceptive misrepresentation, short of lying, especially by pretentious word or deed, of somebody's own thoughts, feelings or attitudes”"

The important difference is that bullshit is not lies, and you do not have to "have little experience or skill" on a topic to spread bullshit on that topic, all you need is a disregard for the truth, in favor of whatever is convenient to you which could overlap with the truth or not. In this way this definition is almost directly in opposition to Frankfurt's which makes me think this paper is a bunch of bullshit.

edit: Frankfurt's own words on his definition of bullshit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1RO93OS0Sk&feature=youtu.be...






I was disappointed by Frankfurt's "On Bullshit". I felt he spent 9/10th of the book on academically defining different aspects of bullshit, and only getting into the details of the effects and ways to deal with bullshit in the last few pages. Basically it was a book which carved out a boundary for his definition of "bullshit", which made it read like a philosophy text with little application in the real world.



Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: