Bulverism is the refuting of a point based on preconceived observations. C.S. Lewis describes it thoroughly in an essay in order to try to enlighten people of the gain of arguments. Because of argument's poor connotation, a definition will be a useful tool in clarity. An argument is not necessarily a series of brutish attacks between warring fanatics, but is just a general term for a dispute between separate parties. Bulverism then is a way of arguing that is generally considered not constructive but occurs often.
This happens frequently before a thought is even completed. Based on some preconception A will decide that B is already wrong. A does not like the way B wears hats, so when B begins to talk about how it wears gloves, A immediately discounts B as a poor source for that information. The preconception A has allows neither learning nor B could have had the secret to wearing gloves in the perfect way, but B also can have more information that A already knew, or information that A, given proper debate procedure, could prove faulty. There is a chance both ways, and A is cutting out both the opportunity for learning or time wasting.
Is the chance of B having useful information 50/50? There are specific incidents where I feel that the bulveristic thought process may be useful. I would argue that in many cases, odds can be educationally guessed before the interaction is held. If the initial judgement of whether the opponent will be right or wrong is bulveristic, then stereotypes are a large part of that. A stereotype, or "pre-judgement" can actually be a useful way of limiting time loss. Stereotypes can give statistically likely background knowledge of a person from simple initial contact. If someone were to claim to a scientific orginization that they had the method to individual human flight, there can already be educated guesses as to how likely they are to actually holding that knowledge. As a very rough break down, I will simply estimate the likelihood of several different types of people's chances of knowing that long sought after flight (these are rough estimates used for example purposes only):
A Doctor of Engineering- 85% chance
A College Engineering Student- 10% chance
A College English Student- 4% chance
A High School Student- 3% chance
A 4th Grade Student- <1% chance
A Biologist- ??% chance
Even though this is a fictitious diagram, it serves it's purpose. If a Doctor of Engineering were to make such a bold claim, they would be far more likely to be able to back it up for a multiple reasons: they have gone through many years of schooling in that project's subject, their reputation could be hindered if incorrect, they likely have a more logical mindset of how to deal with the project, etc. However, they could also be joking around or simply be wrong. You'll notice though that the high school student for instance has a far lower percentage chance, this is because at his level of education, maturity, average resources, etc. he is far less likely to be able to back up that claim. It is worth mentioning that there is still a chance though, and for that an avid listener may find a gem. Although from a logical perspective, the listener must decide whether or not that time is worth giving to each presentation.
This "pre-judgement" is something that people use every time they write a research paper, and society even encourages it. When getting sources for a research paper, the person will look for relevant articles that are likely to hold valuable information. If one article is written by "Jimbo" then they are less likely to even read it and immediately mark it as useless to move on. If another article is written by "Dr. Franklin" they are more likely to see what it has to say while looking for useful research. This is basic bulverism, even in deciding that one article is not worth your time over another, but it is statistically logical in order to save time.
In short, although bulverism is often a chain that slows intellectual growth through allowing ignorance and stagnant unresolved issues, it can be used as a tool to skip over sources that are unlikely to be useful, in order to save time for other things that are statistically more useful.
2 comments:
I really liked your post Ben. I appreciated you showing how bulverism can be used for good. It is true that Bulverism can produce a lot of problems, and destroy arguments. But it has some worth in it, through stereotypes of understanding. However it is definitely an area of concern. Some stereotypes are based on good reason, such as children in middle school not being incredibly wise. But it is a fine line that we must be aware of. Stereotypes that were present during the 1920s regarding black people were anything but helpful. There are many more examples I could cite but for simplicities sake I will leave it at that, and simply say that we have to be very careful when using stereotypes. Always using discernment and God's word to help us work through issues.
Ben I really like this. I feel like most vices are rooted in something beneficial. For example, I think that someone who is good with money management and saving money is probably likely to also have some greed like tendencies. I completely agree that in context bulverism is an effective way of distinguishing credible information from far fetched theories.
Post a Comment