History Main / Bulverism

[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism Bulverism]] is a logical fallacy in which one party simply assumes that the other party is wrong and explains their reasons for wanting to believe it rather than addressing the argument itself. It combines [[UsefulNotes/LogicalFallacies Begging the Question]] with the GeneticFallacy.

[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism Bulverism]] is a logical fallacy in which one party simply assumes that the other party is wrong and explains their reasons for wanting to believe it rather than addressing the argument itself. It combines [[UsefulNotes/LogicalFallacies Begging the Question]] with the Genetic Fallacy.

Wiki/TheOtherWiki expresses Bulverism as:

[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism Bulverism]] is a logical fallacy in which one party simply assumes that the other party is wrong and explains their reasons for wanting to believe it rather than addressing the argument itself. It combines [[UsefulNotes/LogicalFallaciies Begging the Question]] with the Genetic Fallacy.

Similar to FallacyFallacy, AdHominem, and Argumentum Ad Lapidem in that the opponent is finding or inventing biases in the other's argument rather than addressing the argument itself. Also related to HitlerAteSugar, where a viewpoint is fallaciously discounted because somebody who held it was a bad actor.

[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism Bulverism]] is a logical fallacy in which one party simply assumes that the other party is wrong and explains their reasons for wanting to believe it rather than addressing the argument itself. It combines BeggingTheQuestion with the Genetic Fallacy.

[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism Bulverism]] is a logical fallacy in which one party simply assumes that the other party is wrong and explains their reasons for wanting to believe it rather than addressing the argument itself. It combines BeggingTheQuestion with the GeneticFallacy.

Similar to FallacyFallacy, AdHominem, and ArgumentumAdLapidem in that the opponent is finding or inventing biases in the other's argument rather than addressing the argument itself. Also related to HitlerAteSugar, where a viewpoint is fallaciously discounted because somebody who held it was a bad actor.

* Sometimes people will play the Devil’s advocate, arguing for a position that they don’t hold, in order to test whether it has been unfairly maligned (or, potentially, unduly credited). This is a valid technique known as “steelmanning” and is not fallacious, but sometimes a person arguing that a position is not as bad as traditionally believed, or not as good as such, is mistaken for using this fallacy. This is only really true if the defenses are AdHoc reasoning.

In short, it can be summarized as "You're only claiming X to be the case because you ''want'' X to be the case!". This is fallacious, as whether or not someone wants something to be true because it would benefit them personally as no bearing on whether or not it actually ''is''.

* Communists in the past have alleged that those who don't believe in communism do so because of "false consciousness" (if they're working class) or, if bourgeois, won't because it goes against their class interest.

* A very common argument against legalizing drugs is to assume that the pro-legalization side are themselves drug addicts or pushers. In fact, it wasn’t until a plurality of the public started to support decriminalizing marijuana that this stopped being the knee-jerk first response, though it’s still used on occasion.

In short, it can be summarized as "You're only claiming X to be the case because you ''want'' X to be the case!". This is fallacious, as whether or not someone wants something to be true -- and whether or not it would benefit them personally -- has no bearing on whether or not it actually ''is''.

* Therefore, A is false.

In short, it can be summarized as "You're only claiming X to be the case because you ''want'' X to be the case!". This is fallacious, as whether or not someone wants something to be true has no bearing on whether or not it actually ''is''. Besides, the assumption behind the claim is that truth is inherently unpleasant, so any claim that happens to benefit one personally is automatically nothing more than a comforting lie, and therefore [[FalseDichotomy there is not such thing as a comforting truth]].

In short, it can be summarized as "You're only claiming X to be the case because you ''want'' X to be the case!". This is fallacious, as whether or not someone wants something to be true has no bearing on whether or not it actually ''is''.

* When one actually has refuted the opponent, then it’s not fallacious to speculate on why they believe nonsense, though it’s still very rude. So it wouldn’t be this fallacy to dismiss a [[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaring_the_circle circle-squarer]] as only holding their belief because they are a crank or mentally ill, since squaring the circle with a compass and straightedge has been proven impossible (since this would require pi to be algebraic when it is in fact transcendental). The problem comes when one already assumes that one is ''obviously'' right and one’s opponent ''obviously'' wrong to the point that one assumes the opponent came to their position in bad faith, before the debate even begins.

* Both atheists (such as George Rey) and theists (such as Paul Vick) frequently assume that the other side is wrong, then attempt to explain how they fell into error. To elaborate on the given examples, Rey claims theists are self-deceived. Vick argues atheists [[DaddyIssues lacked a strong father growing up]], and therefore cannot believe in a fatherly God.

Similar to FallacyFallacy, AdHominem, and ArgumentumAdLapidem in that the opponent is finding or inventing biases in the other's argument rather than addressing the argument itself.

* When one actually has refuted the opponent, then it’s not fallacious to speculate on why they believe nonsense, though it’s still very rude. So it wouldn’t be this fallacy to dismiss a circle-squarer as only holding their belief because they are a crank or mentally ill, since squaring the circle with a compass and straightedge has been proven impossible (since this would require pi to be algebraic when it is in fact transcendental). The problem comes when one already assumes that one is ''obviously'' right and one’s opponent ''obviously'' wrong to the point that one assumes the opponent came to their position in bad faith, before the debate even begins.

* The more out-there social justice activists accuse those who don't buy their theories of racism, sexism, or whatever they are opposing of having the same bias (perhaps [[InternalizedCategorism internalizing this]] when the person is not white, male, etc. themselves).

[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism Bulverism]] is a logical fallacy in which one party simply assumes that the other party is wrong and explains their reasons for wanting to believe it rather than addressing the argument itself. It combines CircularReasoning with the GeneticFallacy.

* Communists in the past have alleged that those who don't believe in communism due so because of "false consciousness" (if they're working class) or, if bourgeois, won't because it goes against their class interest.
* The more out-there social justice activists accuse those who don't buy their theories of racism, sexism, or whatever they are opposing of having the same bias (perhaps [[InternalizedCategorism internalizing this]] when the person is not white, female, etc. themselves).

[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism Bulverism]] is a logical fallacy in which one party simply assumes that the other party is wrong and explains their reasons for wanting to believe it rather than addressing the argument itself. It combine CircularReasoning with the GeneticFallacy.

* Both atheists such as George Rey and theists (for instance Paul Vick) have just assumed that the other side is wrong, then attempted to explain how they fell into error. Rey claims theists are self-deceived. Vick argues atheists lacked a strong father growing up, and therefore cannot believe in a fatherly God. Communists in the past have alleged that those who don't believe in communism due so because of "false consciousness" (if they're working class) or if bourgeois won't because it goes against their class interest. The more out-there social justice activists accuse those who don't buy their theories of racism, sexism or whatever they are opposing of having the same bias (perhaps [[InternalizedCategorism internalizing this]] when the person is not white, female, etc. themselves).

* Both atheists such as George Rey and theists (for instance Paul Vick) have just assumed that the other side is wrong, then attempted to explain how they fell into error. Rey claims theists are self-deceived. Vick argues atheists lacked a strong father growing up, and therefore cannot believe in a fatherly God. Communists in the past have alleged that those who don't believe in communism due so because of "false consciousness" (if they're working class) or if bourgeois won't because it goes against their class interest. The more out there social justice activists accuse those who don't buy their theories of racism, sexism or whatever they are opposing (perhaps [[InternalizedCategorism internalizing this]] when the person is not white, female, etc. themselves).

TheOtherWiki expresses Bulverism as:

* Both atheists such as George Rey and theists (for instance Paul Vick) have assumed that the other side is wrong, then attempted to explain how they fell into error. Rey claims theists are self-deceived. Vick argues atheists lacked a strong father growing up, and therefore cannot believe in a fatherly God. Communists in the past have alleged that those who don't believe in communism due so because of "false consciousness" (if they're working class) or if bourgeois won't because it goes against their interest. The more out there social justice activists accuse those who don't buy their theories of racism, sexism or whatever they are opposing (perhaps [[InternalizedCategorism internalizing this]] when the person is not white, female, etc. themselves).

[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism Bulverism]] is a logical fallacy in which one party simply assumes that the other party is wrong and explains their reasons for wanting to believe it rather than addressing the argument itself. It is a specific subtype of the AdHominem fallacy.

The term was coined by CSLewis in an essay of the same name in which he describes the (fictional) origin of the fallacy: a boy named Ezekiel Bulver heard his parents arguing when his mother said "Oh you say that ''because you are a man.''" at which point Bulver realized that "refutation is no necessary part of argument".

Lewis himself summed up the fallacy as "to assume without discussion that he [your opponent] is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly."