Friday, January 7, 2011

Bulverism

Bulverism is the idea that "refutation is no necessary part of argument."  It is when people attack their opponents rather than the points of argument.  This phenomenon is an obstacle to true learning and thinking because people do not consider the ideas and test them, but rather put all their effort into shooting the person down.  Instead, as Lewis argues, "you must find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments....You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong."


For our floor class, we studied evolution and we experienced the effects of people attacking the opposing views' character rather than the points of their argument.  When doing so, it shut out and put off the audience who agreed with the "wrong" side instead of appealing to them and helping the audience to better grasp the speakers' views.  People were more receptive to an inviting speaker who was just telling what they had learned and was seeking to understand the universe better. 


I didn't understand Lewis's definitions of cause and reason until discussion with other students.  Reason seems to be the thinking or analysis of a situation while cause is our worldview, our background, our assumptions, maybe the "taint" Lewis mentions. Lewis questions whether "all thoughts are tainted at the source" and "does the taint invalidate the tainted thought - in the sense of making it untrue - or not?"  I think all things are tainted at the source because everyone's perspective on life is influenced by their environment and what they grew up with.  Does that taint matter? Yes and no.  Like stated before, Lewis says to confront the argument at hand rather than the source so the taint can lead to a valid and invalid argument.  But it is helpful to understand the taint so that we can better understand where the person is coming from.

A point that did not even cross my mind while reading the article was how to combat bulverism.  Our attitude should be one of humility, recognizing we are finite and looking to help each other to a better understanding of the topic.  We should listen, truly listen and not just hear, and be objective towards the person - would your opinion change if a different person said it?  Obviously, some people have more credibility than others, such as a scientist talking about the field of their expertise, but one should not accept or reject ideas simply based on the person speaking it.  A comment that really struck me was that we should respect everyone like the person you really admire. When respect is given to them, they will give you respect in return.  How my attitude and actions would change!  Especially with people close to me and people I do not respect very much, I can see how messed up I am in this area. 


I really like the analogy used in class for how to approach our relationship with people in this world.  It is like we have all fallen into mud on the ground.  All we can do is to pick each other up and clear the mud from their eyes so they can see more clearly.  We are all still dirty but we are helping each other see things as they truly are.  We should not be trying to sling more mud into people's faces. 

4 comments:

  1. It's very true that during an argument we need to argue with a person because of their viewpoints, not because of who they are. Bulverism is very dangerous in this aspect because you end up arguing about the person, not about the argument. Of course, like you mentioned, we need to argue respectfully, because that is the only way to combat Bulverism.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is very true that we must respond in all our engagements with others in humility. Often when respect is given, it is returned. In addition, a discussion that is begun with two willingly humble and open-minded persons is certainly much more fruitful than one that is not. However, I wonder at our responses at times when we are giving respect to another individual and are treated with Bulverism in return. How much further in our discussions do we persist in humility to an individual who is clearly not applying the same standards as we are to them? Shall we shake off each Bulveristic gesture and fight to have a clear and helpful discussion? Argue right back at them or simply recognize their Bulverism and walk away? Finally, how should a Christian preaching the Gospel approach an unbelieving Bulverist?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think you offered a good explanation of what Bulverism is. I really liked your last paragraph. I had totally forgotten about that mud thing that professor talked about. I do agree with you we should help each other to see more clearly instead of putting more mud on other people's faces by attacking them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good ideas - it is so true. Also, I noticed Josh's comment. Josh, you brought up some good and interesting and challanging questions that I think are definitely worth pondering. I think if we show respect for someone and you are treated with Bulverism in return that the ideal thing would be to persist in humility and set that as an example for the other. This is hard though and something that can be put to practice!

    ReplyDelete