Bulverism & Debate Dysfunction
A. Assume your opponents are wrong
B. Identify something about your opponents that supposedly explains why they are wrong
Bulverism often springs up in debates that are highly contentious - that is, when people have strongly held beliefs that are also strongly opposed by others. In highly contentious debates, we tend to react in terms of our contempt for the other side of the debate (and even the person that holds the view being opposed). Lewis describes bulverism with an example from math, where fictional Ezekiel Bulver's father claims that the sum of any two sides of a triangle must be longer than the third, and his wife says, "Oh, you say that because you are a man." Ezekiel witnesses this conversation and concludes, "Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, 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."
Bulverism in CRT
Bulverism is everywhere, though we don't always notice it. My interest is in the climate debate, but I think it's good to illustrate it in other highly contentious subjects. In debates surrounding CRT, you may see people argue, "You say (A) there's no systemic racism in the US because (B) you are a white, privileged male." Or maybe because you're a conservative, racist, bigoted, blinded by your sheltered existence in middle class suburbia, etc. Meanwhile, opponents argue, "You say (A) there is systemic racism in the US because (B) you are marxist/socialist, and you want to control people's lives." Or maybe because you're also racist and hateful and want nothing more than to extract money from others that you didn't earn yourself. At no point in these discussions do we discuss what kinds of criteria would constitute systemic racism in the US and whether we find these criteria in the US sufficiently to say that there is systemic racism. In other words, both sides of the debate simply assume their opponents are wrong, and then proceed to "debate" by explaining to their opponents what it is about them that explains they are wrong. Yet logic would dictate that systemic racism either exists or doesn't exist in the U.S. independently of whether the person you happen to be debating is white, black, marxist, fascist, rich, poor, privileged, hateful, etc. When we allow ourselves to be sucked into bulverism, rational debate stops. We spend all our time defending ourselves and no time discussing the subject at hand.
Lewis contends that B (what explains why someone is wrong) is only relevant after you establish A (that someone is wrong). That is, if you can supply evidence for A, it may be relevant to move on to B, but both A and B require evidence. If systemic racism exists in the US (I'm convinced it does), that doesn't allow us to make up whatever convenient explanation B we like for those that question it - it doesn't justify calling them racist just because you feel you need to in order to explain why they're wrong.
Bulverism in the Climate Debate
In the climate debate, these tactics are pretty rampant. Proponents of AGW may argue that their opponents (A) reject AGW because (B) they are anti-science, scientifically illiterate, politically conservative, or paid shills. Likewise, those rejecting AGW may argue that their opponents (A) accept AGW because (B) they are politically liberal, socialists, advocates of governmental control, want higher taxes, are sheeple, are opposed to civil liberties, serve a "green" religion, or are members of a quasi-religious cult. I've been told all these things by those rejecting climate science in debates. In the vast majority of conversations with contrarians in Facebook groups, contrarians have focused on B often to the exclusion of A, which is just assumed. People are so convinced by A that they see no need to argue for it; the only reason why anyone would hold the views they oppose is if there's some explanation B. So B becomes the focus of discussion.
In these conversations, the bulveristic strategies are sometimes pretty obvious, and people respond with observations that their opponents are committing ad hominem attacks. But in many forms of public discourse, the bulveristic arguments seem to happen in the background, and what is presented is what would be the case if A and B is true. So here's a bulveristic argument:
A. AGW is wrong
B. Because all advocates of AGW are communists who want to use CO2 to control people's lives
Said this way, few would accept the argument. The non sequitur and ad hominem are obvious. However, I came across a news story recently in Vision News, which claimed that the Oxfordshire County Council is going to institute a "climate lockdown" beginning in 2024. The climate lockdown, as reported in this story, is that the city of Oxford, which was divided into six "15 minute" districts in 2021, will restrict people from traveling outside their own residential districts, essentially "imprisoning local residents" within their districts so that they can't escape. In a section of the article entitled, "Communism will make the weather better," we're told,
Every resident will be required to register their car with the County Council who will then monitor how many times they leave their district via number plate recognition cameras. And don’t think you can beat the system if you’re a two car household. Those two cars will be counted as one meaning you will have to divide up the journeys between yourselves. 2 cars 50 journeys each; 3 cars 33 journeys each and so on.
Under the new rules, your social life becomes irrelevant. By de facto Councils get to dictate how many times per year you can see friends and family. You will be stopped from fraternising with anyone outside your district, and if you want a long distance relationship in the future, forget it, you are confined to dating only those within a 15 minute walk of your house.
A single person’s life will be at the mercy of Communists in central office, dictating the same type of draconian rules we had to avert the last crisis, a mild flu virus so deadly 80% of people didn't even know they had it.
An entirely new social structure is being imposed on Oxford's residents (and more cities are to follow) under the lie of saving the planet. but what it really is, is a plan for Command and Control. There will be permits, penalties and even more ubiquitous surveillance. Council officials will determine where you can go and how often, and will log every time you do. 15-minute cities, or 15 minute prisons?
There are no actual documented evidence confirming any of this, though there are blogposts by JoNova and WUWT which depend on this Vision News story. If you compare the story to the what actually is happening in Oxford the bulverism in Vision News becomes apparent.
It turns our that several cities in the UK are suffering from extreme traffic congestion, so if you search for stories about proposed actions to curb traffic congestion in Oxford, you can find several stories. Oxford is divided into six 15 minute districts, and nobody is being imprisoned within them. The council wants to set up "filters" on roads leading to the city center and restrict vehicle traffic on those roads to ease congestion. You can travel between the districts through these filters any time you want using public transportation, Ubers, motorcycles, bikes, mopeds, and vans. The restrictions apply only to cars, but you can apply for a permit to give you 100 days per year travel through the filters with no fine, and households can receive as many as 3 permits. Also, at any time, you can travel with your car via other routes that do not cross the filters (like driving out to the ring road or beltway) to go wherever you want whenever you want.
To be sure, a change like this is going to inconvenience people, and some people are going to be frustrated. So there are also stories describing these frustrations. Some are even frustrated that in a democracy, decisions would be made before receiving sufficient consultation from residents. But even if we concede that these frustrations are due to a breakdown in the democratic process, the Vision News story is explicitly counterfactual. The proposed rules have almost no resemblance to what Vision News reports, and the actual proposed rules are primarily concerned with easing gridlocked traffic (a problem that all acknowledge), with climate change being a secondary concern (more public transportation and fewer cars mean less tailpipe emissions). The Vision News story assumed A (AGW is wrong) and inserted B (communists are using AGW to control people's lives) as an explanation for their fake news. And confirmation bias from those who share similar mindsets caused others to believe it without question and promote it widely. So the JoNova and WUWT blogs ran with it to promote it to more people and the bulveristic fake news went viral.
Bulverism I think is seen most prominently in the terms we use to describe our debating opponents. Proponents of AGW are described as cultists, Mannites, leftists, marxists, warmists, alarmists, sheeple, etc. Climate science is a "green" religion, a cult, etc. Contrarians, likewise, are described as deniers, fossil fuel shills, anti-science, etc. The pejorative names we use are the result of accepting both A and B. But B needs evidence, and B is only relevant after A is also supported with evidence.
Conclusion
I think bulverism is used so commonly today because it serves two purposes: 1) it feeds the confirmation biases of those we agree with, and 2) it angers and alienates those we oppose. In areas where debates are highly contentious, these purposes reinforce the contentious nature of the debate, ensuring it's self-perpetuating. We're all susceptible to confirmation bias, so we're also susceptible to bulverism. But we can also stop and think critically about what we read to identify these tactics and not be manipulated by them.
So I think in any discussion on climate, it's important to tune our "bulverism detectors," so that we can detect arguments and stories that feed or trigger our confirmation biases while at the same time avoiding making arguments that amount to ad hominem attacks and nothing more. People reading the Vision News story may have their beliefs about governmental control affirmed or they may be frustrated by the polemical nature of the story, but they will not emerge from the story better informed about the proposed rule in Oxfordshire County or about climate change. In climate debates, good form should explicitly state the A claim we're making and support it with evidence. Then and only then can we say that B is relevant, and even when it is, we need evidence to support our explanations why people believe A.
Comments
Post a Comment