Bulverism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2008) |
Bulverism is a logical fallacy coined by C. S. Lewis where rather than proving that an argument is wrong, a person instead assumes it is wrong, and then goes on to explain why the other person held that argument. It is essentially a circumstantial ad hominem argument. It is very similar to Antony Flew's "Subject/Motive Shift".
Contents |
[edit] Source of the concept
Lewis wrote about this in an essay of the same name (in 1941) which is available to us in the book God in the Dock. He explains the origin of this term as follows:
You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — "Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.
[edit] Pattern
The form of the Bulverism fallacy can be expressed as follows:
- You claim that A is true.
- Because of B, you personally desire that A should be true.
- Therefore, A is false.
[edit] Examples
In Bulverism, Lewis gives an example of a bank account that he believes holds a large balance, while another might believe that this calculation is incorrect, reflecting wishful thinking on Lewis' part. Lewis argues that an opponent can never arrive at an accurate conclusion by examining his psychological condition alone; instead, one must examine the ledgers and calculate the correct balance. If, after analysis, the balance is indeed proven wrong, hypotheses about psychological motivation may be relevant, but not before then. "If you find my arithmetic correct," Lewis argues, "then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time." Lewis concludes that this principle is "the same with all thinking": one must first prove actual fallacy before attempting to uncover psychological or motivational reasons for error.
From A Reply to Professor Haldane by C. S. Lewis:
The Professor has his own explanation ... he thinks that I am unconsciously motivated by the fact that I ‘stand to lose by social change’. And indeed it would be hard for me to welcome a change which might well consign me to a concentration camp. I might add that it would likewise be easy for the Professor to welcome a change which might place him in the highest rank of an omnicompetent oligarchy. That is why the motive game is so uninteresting. Each side can go on playing ad nauseam, but when all the mud has been flung every man’s views still remain to be considered on their merits. I decline the motive game and resume the discussion.
[edit] External links
- Full text of the essay
- Bulverism and the Argument From Reason by Victor Reppert
