Believing Bullshit: How Not to Get Sucked into an Intellectual Black Hole Paperback – April 26, 2011

...it has a feature I find a little disingenuous. So I'm just going to get that criticism out of the way before I go on to praise the book to the rafters.Early in the book, in the introduction, Law sounds very reasonable when he says that his religious examples of BS should not be taken to mean that no intelligent argument for theism exists. He is, he says, only going after those defenses of theism that employ one of the BS strategies that most of the rest of the book covers (more on that in a second). But despite the fact that Law discusses other types of BS (astrology, crystal healings, UFO cults, etc.), his focus consistently shifts back to theism and it's very clear that despite his earlier protestation to the contrary, and despite often making conciliatory-sounding comments about how there just may be some reasonable defense of theism he hasn't come across yet, Law is one hundred percent convinced that by far the most reasonable position is atheism.And he makes the case very well, and I think he's right. And that's FINE. Maybe books like this one (the other book "like this" I read recently is Reasonable Atheism: A Moral Case For Respectful Disbelief) are a backlash against some of the harsher and less compromising-sounding books by the so-called New Atheists--Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Vic Stenger and others. Maybe authors like Law were genuinely put off by the "tone" of books that just flat-out insist that there is no good reason for believing in gods, and wished to find a way to soften that message somewhat, to make it sound more soft-spokenly reasonable, less shrill and polemical. And that's not an altogether bad thing--I have some sympathy for that impulse.But the truth is that once you remove the flannel swaddling from Law's arguments, the stone-and-steel facts of logical force still remain, and it is not kind to theism. I am convinced that Law knows this, and while I have no doubt that he's sincere about leaving the door open to other, better arguments, it's hard not to conclude that he considers leaving that door open to be like setting a place at the table for Elijah in case he shows up for dinner. Can't be absolutely ruled out, but come on. Close e-freaking-nough.On to the contents. And a blanket statement--the entire book is extremely well-written. Without ever talking down to the reader, who Law obviously assumes will be intelligent and thoughtful, the prose maintains a popular accessibility. No descents into arcana or Latin jargon, and the examples he draws from are lively and on-point. No strutting here, just useful and engaging writing.After the introduction, there are chapters on "Playing the Mystery Card," "But It Fits!," "Going Nuclear," "Moving the Semantic Goalposts," "I Just Know!," "Pseudoprofundity," "Piling Up the Anecdotes," "Pressing Your Buttons." For each chapter, Law explains how the BS trick is used, why it's not legitimate to use it, and provides excellent and interesting examples...which he then goes on to deconstruct with non-BS logic. It's a winning approach, and as an amateur skeptic who loves poking around various non-rational beliefs like homeopathy, Law of Attraction stuff, creationism (including intelligent design), end times prophecies and the like, I can say that every one of Law's examples is completely on-target. And his responses--devastating.What I'm saying is that with "BS," you get a twofer. It's entertaining just as a general kind of read-for-fun book, but it's also a master class in spotting and confronting bologna, and avoiding the Intellectual Black Holes that Law rightly points out, even the brightest of people can fall into if they get trapped in an attractive bubble of unreason, spackled shut by great smears of impenetrable bovine manure.I'll go back to my initial quibble, though. When it is abundantly clear that a few truly cogent, FORCEFUL arguments are on one side of debate, as is true with atheism, I'm not entirely convinced that feigning a wholly unnecessary and frankly patronizing "fairness" isn't itself not a form of BS.

Believing BS: How Not to Get Sucked into an Intellectual Black Hole by Stephen Law"Believing BS" is an informative book that identifies eight key mechanisms that can lead ideas into an intellectual abyss. Philosopher, educator and accomplished author, Stephen Law provides an interesting book that will help immunize readers against the follies of poor thinking. It's an expose of popular rhetorical tricks used to defend BS belief system. The author provides many practical examples and shows us quite clearly how to avoid being sucked into these intellectual black holes. This helpful 271-page book includes the following eight chapters (mechanisms): 1. Playing the Mystery Card, 2. "But it Fits! and The Blunderbus, 3. Going Nuclear, 4. Moving the Semantic Goalposts, 5. "I Just Know!", 6. Pseudoprofundity, 7. Piling Up the Anecdotes, and 8. Pressing Your Buttons.Positives:1. A well-researched and accessible book. The author has a pleasant, engaging style.2. Despite the provocative title, I found the book to be fair, reasonable and even-handed.3. Succeeds in achieving its main goal of providing readers with intellectual tools to defend against intellectual black holes ("systems constructed in such a way that unwary passerby can find themselves similarly drawn in").4. Explains eight key strategies in detail by providing illustrations that clearly show how they are applied and what's wrong with it.5. Includes many religious examples such as Young Earth Creationism and Christian Science. Young Earth Creationism debunked with just the following: "What of the seasonal layers of ice found at the poles, the drilled-out cores of which reveal a seasonal history dating back hundreds of thousands of years?"6. Provides plausible explanations on why we are predisposed in believing in invisible agents. As an example, the Hypersensitive Agent Detection Device (H.A.D.D.). "Thus evolution will select for an inheritable tendency to not just detect--but overdetect--agency."7. The problem of evil strikes again. "Even if God had to allow some evil for the sake of certain greater goods, surely he could have no reason to allow quite so much." "In any case, what about the countless generations of humans that suffered before the Bible was written?"8. Many interesting philosophical questions, "Is it true that beliefs about supernatural agents, gods, powers and other phenomena are essentially immune to scientific refutation? Find out.9. The scientific method, always a worthwhile discussion. The value of other approaches like philosophy to make reasonable refutations. "What a scientific theory requires if it is to be credible is not merely consistency with the evidence but confirmation by the evidence--the stronger the confirmation, the better."10. Good quotes always add value to a book, "It is important to stress that what we are looking at here is not a mere absence of evidence for the claim that crystals have such effects, but rather that it is some positive evidence of the absence of any such effects."11. I like the concept of genuine confirmation of scientific theory. "The theory must make predictions that are: 1) clear and precise, 2) surprising, and 3) true."12. Going Nuclear as a last ditch strategy to avoid defeat that lays waste to every position. The two main variants of "Going Nuclear": skeptical and relativist. Many good examples.13. Effing the ineffable. "What I'm objecting to is the unjustified and partisan use of this suggestion to immunize Theism against powerful counterarguments, while at the same time allowing a degree of effability whenever, say, there appears to be something positive to be said in its favor."14. Believing something in perspective. "Perhaps the most obvious way in which you might be justified in believing something is if you have good evidence that what you believe is true."15. Pseudoprofundity exposed. "Mockery may be both useful and legitimate if we can show that it is deserved."16. Using anecdotes instead of significant evidence to support a supernatural claim. "What would be more impressive is if, say, after being prayed for, someone's amputated leg grew back." Agreed.17. The power of suggestion. "Expectation strongly shapes perception." Many great examples.18. Belief-shaping mechanisms...brainwashing. The five core beliefs behind it.19. A very good summary of the eight mechanisms and the main nine examples.20. Notes included and linked.Negatives:1. The book is overall a bit uneven. That is, some topics get the royal treatment while others get the gloss over. As an example, using mockery as a tool. I was hoping for a little more depth on a tool I believe is underrated in its effectiveness.2. I didn't really care for "The Tapescrew Letters"; sure it brings everything together but it didn't do much for me.3. No formal bibliography.In summary, I really enjoyed reading this book. Law succeeds in providing the public with an accessible tool to defend against intellectual black holes. He defines new terms well and provides many examples that clearly illustrate belief-shaping mechanisms in practice. Perhaps a couple of missed opportunities, the power of ridicule seems to be a very effective tool that received little ink. That being said, this turned out be an informative and helpful book. I recommend it!Further recommendations: "The God Argument: The Case against Religion and for Humanism" by A.C. Grayling, "Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism" by Richard Carrier, "The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule" and "The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths" by Michael Shermer, "A Rulebook for Arguments" by Anthony Weston, "The Philosophy of Science" by Samir Okasha, "42 Fallacies" by Michael C. LaBossiere, "50 Popular Beliefs That People Think Are True" by Guy P. Harrison, "Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction" by Eugenie C. Scott, "The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood" by David R. Montgomery, "God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer" by Bart D. Ehrman, and "The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us" by Victor Stenger.

A very informative, entertaining, and sometimes funny read that tells us why people believe (obviously) false things and how to resist falling for them (even if it is inevitable that we will believe in some false things.)

Ce livre décrit huit mécanismes qui poussent beaucoup de personnes à être prisonnier de ce que l'auteur appelle des "trous noirs intellectuels", c'est à dire des systèmes d'idées fallacieuses mais tellement attirantes qu'il est impossible de s'en échapper une fois qu'on est rentré dedans.Il analyse ces mécanismes en détails, explique pourquoi ils sont si puissants, mais également pourquoi ils sont trompeurs. Le livre est accessible à quiconque a un niveau de base en anglais et en philosophie.Ce livre est donc dans l'ensemble excellent. Vous pourrez vous amuser ensuite à analyser quelle stratégie emploie tel ou tel défenseur de systèmes de croyances New Age, tel ou tel apôtre du relativisme postmoderne, ou tel ou tel défenseur des religions traditionnelles dans son argumentation : toutes les chances que vous trouverez parmi ces stratégies celles qui sont décrites dans ce livre.Il y a deux points (qui ne remettent absolument pas en question la qualité ni les thèses principales du livre) sur lesquels je ne suis cependant pas d'accord avec l'auteur.1) Stephen Law prend beaucoup (trop) de précautions à laisser une porte ouverte aux théistes. Ses arguments démontent pièce par pièce les principales défenses "sophistiquées" du théisme moderne (ou, j'aurais envie de dire, postmoderne). Ils ne s'attaquent pas aux arguments traditionnels pour l'existence de Dieu (argument ontologique, cosmique, du dessein, etc.) mais je ne crois pas que Stephen Law leur accorde un quelconque poids. En tout et pour tout, je ne vois pas comment quiconque accepte les arguments de ce livre et n'accorde aucun poids aux arguments traditionnels pour l'existence de Dieu peut encore laisser une chance au théisme. L'insistance avec laquelle Law précise qu'il ne prétend pas avoir réfuté toute défense raisonnable du théisme me parait insincère, et ironiquement, être une forme de bullshit, comme l'a fait remarquer un autre client anglophone.2) Sa critique de l'évidentialisme et sa défense du reliabilisme ne me parait pas convaincante. Pour deux raisons.Premièrement, je pense que de la même façon qu'en éthique, on fait une distinction entre métaéthique et éthique pratique (voire le livre de Mackie, Ethics, "inventing right and wrong") de la même manière, on peut faire une distinction entre ce qu'on pourrait appeler une métaépistémologie (ou une épistémologie fondamentale) qui viserait à analyser les ultimes fondements de nos connaissances et de nos croyances (sujet que je trouve personnellement assez ennuyeux, mais passons), et une épistémologie pratique dont le rôle serait de donner des prescriptions pour des problèmes épistémologiques concrets. Or Law critique l'évidentialisme parce que chaque evidence repose sur d'autres evidences, et ainsi de suite, et que si on appliquait ce principe, la seule option possible serait de ne jamais rien croire. Mais dans la pratique,(et ce livre est un livre d'épistémologie pratique) il y a dans chaque discussion énormément de choses que chaque interlocuteur doit tenir pour acquis dans le fait même d'avoir une discussion avec quelqu'un sur un sujet donné. Il y a donc en pratique dans chaque discussion assez de croyances communes entre les deux parties pour que le principe de l'évidentialisme puisse fonctionner. Deuxièmement, même d'un point de vue de l'épistémologie fondamentale, l'argument de Law n'est pas convaincant. L'évidentialisme a été défendu et le reliabilism critiqué d'un point de vue fondamentale par d'autres auteurs (voir Earl Conee and Richard Feldman, Evidentialism). Mais ici, ce qui est étrange dans l'argumentation de Law, c'est que sa démonstration du fait que le reliabilism ne permet pas un échappatoire à ceux qui prétendent que leur lien direct avec Dieu est une manière "reliable" (fiable) d'acquérir des connaissances est, de manière transparente, une argumentation evidentialiste (son argument est qu'il y a des évidences contre l'hypothèse que le sensus divinitatis soit un mécanisme "reliable"). Si donc le reliabilism a besoin d'une argumentation évidentialiste pour être établie ou précisée, on ne voit pas comment le reliabilism pourrait être une théorie épistémologique plus fondamentale et plus juste que l'evidentialism.Ces critiques étant faites, je recommande ce livre à quiconque s'intéresse aux débats sur les croyances au paranormal, aux religions et aux idéologies. Je trouve extrêmement dommage qu'un livre de cette qualité ne soit pas traduit en Français.

The book is less about arguments against irrational beliefs, but rather about the different ways people protect their belief through various creative rationalisations.I know a great number of highly educated people with all kinds of academic titles who are lost in one black hole or another (great metaphor by the way). Therefore I have encountered all the strategies Stephen Laws mentions in his book, every one of them. These are very intelligent and smart people. They understand and know the arguments against their believe well, and they don't get upset about critique. They just feel sorry for me that I "don't get it". So they are literally immun against any arguments Stephen Law might have, the light of enlightenment doesn't reach into their black hole, and in so far it is useless. Therefore the book may be just another study of human nature.The problem is also that these people lecture other people to suck them into their black hole (see also the brilliant Tapescrew letters.) They learned how to argue and rationalize in academia, and they have a title to impress other people. In fact, for any irrational belief the followers can point to some so-called scientist who supports their belief. So, I don't have hope for the world to ever become rational and to realize Kant's enlightenment. At the end it may be to our peril. As Ernst Mayr argued, intelligence maybe a lethal mutation.I just had wished one more thing from this book: a deeper analysis of why exactly it is wrong to believe anything on insufficient evidence. William Clifford had some good examples, but I thought a modern analytical philosopher could have added to that. Because so often people don't see a problem to believe something without good evidence. I like it, they say, it feels good, why should I care if it is true?Finally, I was surprised that with all the display of rationality, logic, and analysis, Stephen Law seems to believe in the official 9/11 version.

Reading this book is like watching Barcelona dismantle their opponents on the football pitch. You don't need to know much about the beautiful game to appreciate the simplicity of the passes, the fitness of the players, the intricacy of the dribbling, and so on. Likewise, anyone with a modicum of reason will enjoy Stephen Law's masterclass in how to steer clear of "Intellectual Black Holes". Perhaps as important as the detailed analysis is seeing reason in action - one of the best ways to appreciate the beauty and power of reason itself. In football, the cynical player resorts to foul play to stop a great team. In life, the sloppy or cynical thinker - the cult leader, the purveyor of quack medicines, the dodgy financial advisor - simply has to "raise enough intellectual dust" to put their opponents on the back foot. Law identifies eight strategies - including playing the mystery card, going nuclear, pseudoprofundity - which are the intellectual equivalents of the two-footed tackle, the shoulder barge, and so on. He unpacks and explains these key strategies in pungent and entertaining detail, and provides us with enough rational rocket fuel to keep our minds from being sucked into the reason-free zone that is an Intellectual Black Hole."Why does it matter if some people happen to believe absurd things?" It matters if they are in positions of power, in government or in the media. President Bush, for example, famously relied on the "God-sensing faculty" in his gut to guide the ship of state. It also matters if they are powerless or vulnerable to exploitation. We should protect children from the more dangerous religious beliefs of their parents, and we should look out for those who are coerced or duped into, say, wasting "both cash and emotional energy seeking out reassurances about lost loved ones that are, in reality, worthless". So, apart from sheer curiosity, both self-interest and compassion should motivate our inquiry.The title may strike some as being less than serious. Studying bullshit is, however, respectable philosophy, the subject of Harry Frankfurt's excellent essay On Bullshit. As Law emphasizes, it's not the content of a bullshit belief system that is necessarily the problem (since the content may, on occasion, be true), but "the manner in which its core beliefs are defended and promoted". The bullshitter says whatever suits his purposes, "without any care as to whether what he says is true".The bullshitter would prefer you to share his freewheeling attitude, and although he may seem neutral as far as truth is concerned (it's not his primary goal), he certainly doesn't welcome reason or clarity. The reasonable person can't help but care about the truth, since reason itself is "truth sensitive" and functions "as a filter on false beliefs". So, because reason is bound to unmask the bullshitter sooner or later, anything capable of disrupting "the truth-detecting power of reason" will naturally be embraced. Hence, the popularity of these eight strategies.Most of them also function as conversation stoppers (precisely what is needed by anyone losing an argument). How do you respond to someone who just knows they have psychic powers? Is there time to move the semantic goalposts back into position (assuming you noticed them being shifted in the first place)? Has untangling all that pseudoprofundity sapped the will to live? Understanding what's going on is half the battle; putting that understanding into practice to keep the conversation going in a reasonable direction is the other, more tricky half. Bullshit artists don't tend to hang around once they've raised "enough dust and confusion to make quick their escape".Going nuclear is perhaps the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card, since it stops reason itself. If you can cast doubt on reason, then any conclusion that is not to your taste can simply be dismissed as groundless. Law identifies two main variants. The skeptic "lays waste to every rational argument, bringing every belief down to the same level", alluding along the way to the genuine philosophical puzzle of how beliefs are justified, and typically finishing with a flourish: "ultimately, everything is a faith position!" The relativist, in contrast, likes the truth so much that we can each have our own: there's your truth, my truth, his truth, and oh, yes, if you insist, scientific truth, just one among many, all of which are equally "valid".The problem is, those "who press the nuclear button rarely do so in good faith". They'll "rely on reason to make their case just so long as they are not losing the argument" but as soon as things turn against them they'll start jabbing that finger, demanding that you "show a little humility", and pointing out, with an air of resignation, that there are more things in heaven and earth "than are dreamt of in your philosophy". What adds to the frustration of having a perfectly good argument maligned is seeing your opponent strike a sanctimonious pose, exuding "an air of calm intellectual and spiritual superiority". Such people are not very nice, to put it mildly, and this personal dimension is brought out wonderfully in the Tapescrew Letters at the end of the book, which lay bare the kind of instruction a senior guru might hand down to an apprentice.One minor quibble is that Law too readily signs up to Hume's idea that we can't get an "ought" from an "is". Recent work (e.g. Hilary Putnam's The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays and Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape) shows that this question is still open. To be fair, the context was not an in-depth examination of the supposed dichotomy; he was making the point "that there may well be questions science cannot answer". His conclusion, that "scientism is probably false", is a position few would disagree with.Real black holes are dangerous objects far enough away for them not to keep us awake at night. Intellectual black holes are much closer to home, and the cause of real harm. While those of us lacking robust intellectual and other psychological defences are most easily trapped, "we're all potentially vulnerable". Stephen Law has provided a booster jab for the brain, to keep us all that little bit safer.

I learned a new and important word. Pseudorprofundity. I've been seeing it everywhere. Now I know what to call it.