On Bullshit: a problem or an opportunity?

Iona Kate Longwill Davis

Graphic Design Communication

January 2012

Word count: 8,123

Contents
Image source list:............................................................................................. 2
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 3
Definitions ........................................................................................................ 4
Uses of Bullshit ................................................................................................ 6
Examples of Bullshit ........................................................................................ 7
Language of Advertising ........................................................................... 7
Philosophical Perspectives ............................................................................ 12
H.G. Frankfurt............................................................................................. 12
Eubanks and Schaeffer .............................................................................. 14
G.A Cohen ................................................................................................. 17
Ben Kotzee................................................................................................. 19
G.A. Reisch ................................................................................................ 20
Visually Communicated Bullshit..................................................................... 22
Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 23
Bibliography ................................................................................................... 27

1 Iona Davis
Image Source List
Figure 1. Volkswagen advert

2012. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.grimeandgears.com/wp-

content/uploads/2011/02/theres-no-place-like-car-623x404.jpg. [Accessed 15
January 2012].

Figure 2 - Mascara advert

2012. [ONLINE] Available

at:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Qdr0hqUE3G4/TLY47aRwyEI/AAAAAAAAAGw/g
9PEk15ZbmE/s1600/zooey+deschanel+for+rimmel+mascara+advert.jpg.
[Accessed 15 January 2012].

Figure 3- Iggy pop in car insurance advert

2012. [ONLINE] Available

at:http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01350/iggy_pop_ad_1
350507c.jpg. [Accessed 15 January 2012]

Figure 4 - Harry Frankfurts book "On Bullshit"

2012. [ONLINE] Available at: http://press.princeton.edu/images/k7929.gif.

[Accessed 15 January 2012].

Figure 5 - Interview with Frankfurt

Princeton University press. (2011). On Bullshit. [Online Video]. 01 September.

Availablefrom:http://coblitz.codeen.org/press.princeton.edu/video/frankfurt/Ent
ire.mov. [Accessed: 20 November 2011].

2 Iona Davis
Introduction
Initially embarking on a dissertation about bullshit may seem trivial and
indeed itself no more than bullshit itself. However, a review of others thinking
about bullshit soon reveals that an understanding of those forms of discourse
that fall under the broad and generally derogatory label of bullshit is valuable
in a number of ways. Understanding the forms bullshit can take, can enable
us to critically appraise the truth of the verbal and visual communication that
assails us, and understanding the nature of bullshit and bullshitting can
provide us with some useful insights in to our own attempts to influence and
communicate effectively, as well as the tools to help us do so. While much
about bullshit and bullshitting deserves its derogatory label, I hope to show
that this is not always the case.

I begin with a review of the definitions of bullshit that are generally applied and
describe the various classes of bullshit, supported by examples of them.

I then review the academic work of philosophers and others who have
attempted to define more rigorously these classes , and understand its
nature and role in human discourse and communications. I will attempt to
draw this work together in order to develop my own definition of the nature
and purpose of bullshit.

Finally, I explore what bullshit means for the designer and in visual
communication; suggest we have much to learn from a study of bullshit and
bullshitting and that it does not always deserve its derogatory label; and
conclude that much bullshitting is a useful game (tool?) and that it is likely
because of this that we tolerate bullshit as we do.

3 Iona Davis
Definitions
The word my dissertation focuses on is bullshit, thus I must first present the
current dictionary definition and the origins of the term, before I am able to
delve more deeply into what we actually mean by bullshit. The word is widely
used and in its broadest sense covers any form of disingenuous
communication.

The Collins English Dictionary gives the following definitions:

bullshit

1. exaggerated or foolish talk; nonsense

2. deceitful or pretentious talk

3. Usually shortened to: bull (in the British Army) exaggerated

zeal, esp for ceremonial drill, cleaning, polishing, etc

vb , -shits , -shitting , -shitted

4. ( intr ) to talk in an exaggerated or foolish manner

5. to talk bullshit to

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary:

"eloquent and insincere rhetoric," 1915, Amer.Eng. slang. Bull in the

sense of "trivial or false statements" (1914) is usually associated with
this, but it existed since M.E. in the sense of "false talk, fraud,"
apparently from O.Fr. bole "deception, trick, scheming, intrigue," and
perhaps connected

to modern Icel. bull "nonsense."i

And the Wikipedia page:

"Bull", meaning nonsense, dates from the 17th century, while the term
"bullshit" has been used as early as 1915 in American slang, and came into
popular usage only during World War II. The word "bull" itself may have
derived from the Old French boul meaning "fraud, deceit" (Oxford English
Dictionary). The term "horseshit" is a near synonym. Worthy of note is the
South African English equivalent "bull dust". Few corresponding terms exist in
other languages, with the significant exception of German Bockmist, literally
"billy-goat shit".

4 Iona Davis
The earliest attestation mentioned by the Concise Oxford English Dictionary is
in fact T. S. Eliot, who between 1910 and 1916 wrote an early poem to which
he gave the title "The Triumph of Bullshit"ii

5 Iona Davis
Uses of Bullshit
The word is used widely, often as an expletive or a put down. Its broad use
means that it is impossible to pin down an exact definition, but it is generally
accepted that prototypical bullshitiii has the follow distinguishing
characteristics:

It attempts to impress and make the bullshitter appear more important

or knowledgeable than they are
It seeks to avoid answering a question or cover up an inconvenient fact
It acts as a distraction technique from the issue the bullshitter wants to
avoid
It pushes a particular agenda
It pays scant regard to accuracy or the truth, although it avoids outright
lies.

Bullshit enters and saturates all of our lives. Every day we are bombarded
with it in advertising, in politics, academia and even in religion. We often view
it in a disgruntled manner as something that is being forced down our throats
by big business and powerful people. However, we are all guilty of spouting it
(knowingly or not) everyday as a way of gliding over gaps in our knowledge
and getting our own way.

In their paper A Kind Word for Bullshit: The Problem of Academic Writing the
academics Eubanks and Schaefferiv comment on earlier work by the
philosopher Frankfurt:

Frankfurt is right that all of us are familiar with bullshit. We are also
conflicted about it. In the United States, few words signal the same kind
of ambivalence. Bullshit can be a bitter epithet: the bullshit job, words
that are a bunch of bullshit, and people who are nothing but
bullshitters. Yet the same word can be uttered with sly affection or
charming self-deprecation. (Eubanks and Schaeffer 2008, p.373)

6 Iona Davis
Examples of Bullshit
Although it can be difficult pin down a watertight definition of what we really
believe bullshit to be, we can easily point out examples of it on a daily basis.
The first two examples that spring to mind are advertising and politics. We are
constantly being sold objects, people and places. All advertising has its own
agenda and that agenda is not necessarily to tell the exact truth. Of course
there are rules and regulations within advertising to make sure advertisers do
not lie to us outright, but that leaves a gap for bullshit to thrive.

As a bullshitter, the advertiser has one agenda and that is to sell. They are not
really concerned with what is truth or lies. Advertisers have developed a very
particular way of selling to us, with the language they use and the images and
ideas they portray (I look further at the language of advertising later). An
advertisers aim is usually not to deceive but they often cloak their ideas in
some truths which really hide their secret agenda.

The other big area that springs to my mind when considering bullshit, is
politics. Like the advertisers they have the sole aim of selling themselves and
their ideas and use exaggerated language and political spin, all with the aim
of pushing their ideas or undermining their opponents.

By supposing that your object is to sell something then your object is

not to tell the truth about it, but to get people to believe what you want
them to believe about it and this encourages a resort to bullshit.v
(Frankfurt 2005)

Language of Advertising

Most people would agree that the most common source of bullshit is
advertising. We are constantly being marketed to. In his work on advertising
claims, Jeffrey Schrank, lecturer at the University of Mississippi said:

Advertising is used to create the illusion of superiority (Schrank, undated.

Viewed 2011)

The following are ten techniques advertisers use taken from a handout by
Jeffery Schrank entitled The language of Advertising Claimsvi

The Weasel Claim

The expression "weasel word" is aptly named after the egg-eating habits of
weasels. A weasel will suck out the inside of an egg, leaving it appear intact to
the casual observer. Upon examination, the egg is discovered to be hollow.
Words or claims that appear substantial upon first look but disintegrate into
hollow meaninglessness on analysis are weasels.

Commonly used weasel words include "helps" (the champion weasel); "like"
(used in a comparative sense); "virtual" or "virtually"; "acts" or "works"; "can
be"; "up to"; "as much as"; "refreshes"; "comforts"; "tackles"; "fights"; "come
on"; "the feel of"; "the look of".

7 Iona Davis
Samples of Weasel Claims

"Helps control dandruff symptoms with regular use." The weasels include
"helps control," and possibly even "symptoms" and "regular use." The claim is
not "stops dandruff."

"Leaves dishes virtually spotless." We have seen so many ad claims that we

have learned to tune out weasels. You are supposed to think "spotless,"
rather than "virtually" spotless.

The Unfinished Claim

The unfinished claim is one in which the ad claims the product is better, or
has more of something, but does not finish the comparison.

Samples of Unfinished Claims

"Supergloss does it with more colour, more shine, more sizzle, more!"

The "We're Different And Unique" Claim

This kind of claim states that there is nothing else quite like the product being
advertised. For example, if Schlitz would add pink food colouring to its beer
they could say, "There's nothing like new pink Schlitz." The uniqueness claim
is supposed to be interpreted by readers as a claim to superiority.

Samples of the "We're Different and Unique" Claim

"There's no other mascara like it."

The "Water is Wet" Claim

Figure 1 Volkswagen advert

8 Iona Davis
"Water is wet" claims say something about the product that is true for any
brand in that product category, (for example, "Schrank's water is really wet.")
The claim is usually a statement of fact, but not a real advantage over the
competition, although the consumers is supposed to see it as such.

Samples of the "Water is Wet" Claim

"Great Lash greatly increases the diameter of every lash."

The "so what" claim

This is the kind of claim to which the careful reader will react by saying "So
What?" A claim is made which is true but which gives no real advantage to
the product. This is similar to the "water is wet" claim except that it claims an
advantage.

Samples of the "So What" Claim

"Campbell's gives you tasty pieces of chicken and not one but two chicken
stocks." Does the presence of two stocks improve the taste?

The Vague Claim

The vague claim is simply not clear. This category often overlaps with others.
The key to the vague claim is the use of words that are colourful but
meaningless, as well as the use of subjective and emotional opinions that
defy verification. Most contain weasels.

Samples of the Vague Claim

"Lips have never looked so luscious." Can you imagine trying to either prove
or disprove such a claim?

The Endorsement or Testimonial

A celebrity or authority appears in an ad to lend his or her stellar qualities to
the product. Sometimes the people will actually claim to use the product, but
very often they don't.

Samples of Endorsements or Testimonials

"Joan Fontaine throws a shot-in-the-dark party and her friends learn a thing or
two."

9 Iona Davis
Figure 2 Iggy pop in car insurance advert

The Scientific or Statistical Claim

This kind of ad uses some sort of scientific proof or experiment, very specific
numbers, or an impressive sounding mystery ingredient.

Samples of Scientific or Statistical Claims

"Easy-Off has 33% more cleaning power than another popular brand."

Figure 3 - Mascara advert

The "Compliment the Consumer" Claim

This kind of claim butters up the consumer by some form of flattery.

Samples of the "Compliment the Consumer" Claim

10 Iona Davis
"You pride yourself on your good home cooking...."

The Rhetorical Question

This technique demands a response from the audience. A question is asked
and the viewer or listener is supposed to answer in such a way as to affirm
the product's goodness.

Samples of the Rhetorical Question

"What do you want most from coffee? That's what you get most from Hills."

Id add one further category to this list that I have seen in New Scientist:

Fruitloopery
This is a term used by the New Scientistvii magazine to describe the wildly
incorrect or meaningless use of scientific terms as advertising claims. Key
fruitloopery terms include:

Anything with Quantum in

Bio-active

Fifth dimensional

Vibrationally

Examples of fruitloopery:

"Energized 5D Sound CDs"

I have focused here on language in advertising as it is the most common

source of bullshit and a wealth of research has been carried out on it.
However, it is clear that many of the terms discussed, and ones with very
similar ideas here also feature in the language politicians and religious
leaders use.

11 Iona Davis
Philosophical Perspectives
H.G. Frankfurt

Figure 4 - Harry Frankfurts book "On Bullshit"

The book that first triggered my initial interest in the subject of bullshit was On
Bullshit by H.G. Frankfurtviii . In this pint-sized book Frankfurt attempts to clarify
what bullshit is.

He first looks at the origins of the word, referencing Max Blacks work The
Prevalence of Humbugix, Frankfurt looks at how similar the meanings of
humbug and bullshit are.

He then goes on to discuss how bullshit is different from lying. He argues that
a liar is aware of the truth:

The liar is inescapably concerned with truth values. In order to invent a

lie at all he must think he knows what is true (Frankfurt, 2005, p.51),

It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth

(Frankfurt, 2005, p.55).

In contrast a bullshitter is not constrained by the truth - it is irrelevant to him

He can construct whatever he likes, even the context, in order to put his ideas
across: He just picks them out, or makes them up to suit his purpose.
(Frankfurt, 2005, p.56)

The only concern of the bullshitter is to push their own agenda regardless of
whether it is based in facts or lies. In an interview Frankfurt claimed that

consists in a lack of concern for the difference between truth and

falsity.x Bullshitters have a much greater freedom because they do not
limit [themselves] to inserting a certain falsehood at a specific point.
Even liars are still restricted by their knowledge and regard for the
12 Iona Davis
 truth. In short, bullshitters have much more creative freedom; to bullshit
is more expansive and independent, with more spacious opportunities
for improvisation, colour and imaginative play (Frankfurt, 2005, p.53).

Frankfurt talks about how we tolerate bullshit more than we tolerate lies:

the consequences of being caught [are generally less severe for the
bullshitter than for the liar. In fact people do tend to be more tolerant of
bullshit than of lies (Frankfurt, 2005, p.49).

This is an observation with which I would agree. As previously mentioned we

encounter bullshit in nearly every aspect of our lives, and although we may
moan and demand no bullshit! it is inescapable and we become so inured to
it that its effects on us are lessened. Towards the end of the book and in a
subsequent interview Frankfurt poses the question: Why is there so much
bullshit? (Frankfurt, 2005, p.62). He suggests that the volume of bullshit may
have increased with an increasing volume of communication but the
proportion that is bullshit may not have increased (Frankfurt, 2005, p.62).

Towards the end of the book Frankfurt explains why he thinks bullshit is
unavoidable:

Bullshit is unavoidable wherever circumstances require someone to

talk without knowing what he is talking about. Thus the production of
bullshit is stimulated whenever a person [has] obligations or
opportunities to speak about some topic exceed his knowledge of the
facts that are relevant to that topic.xi(Frankfurt 2006)

Basically, because no one knows everything about everything, we

unavoidably produce bullshit when plugging or skimming over the gaps in our
knowledge. In an interview about his book Frankfurt speaks about the
inherent nature of bullshit:

The tendency to bullshit is encouraged and promoted by the fact that

its a widespread view that in a democratic society, that a responsible
citizen ought to have an opinion about everything. And so your
opinions are like to be based upon bullshit16(Frankfurt 2006).

During the interview Frankfurt was asked whether more highly educated
people were more likely to engage in bullshit, to which he answered:

I think its not only that highly educated people have the linguistic and
intellectual gifts that enable them to create bullshit, but also I think that
a lot of people who are highly educated acquire a kind of arrogance
that leads them to be negligent about truth and falsity. They have a lot
of confidence in their own opinions and this may also encourage them
to produce bullshit. 16(Frankfurt, 2006)

13 Iona Davis
Figure 5 - Interview with Frankfurt

At the end of the interview he was also asked whether there was anything that
could be done about bullshit or whether it was just a universal human
tendency, to which Frankfurt replied:

I dont know if we have an interest in promoting it, but in protecting it, in

seeing that it is tolerated, that it is not punished, that its not regarded
as so reprehensible as lying lets say. I do think we should take steps
to get rid of lying, but bullshit is a more equivocal situation.xii

Frankfurts book opened the door for discussion of what exactly bullshit is, but
he is not the only one; several of the other sources used here reference his
ideas and definition of bullshit heavily.

Eubanks and Schaeffer

Towards the end of his book and in the subsequent interview Frankfurt
touched on the idea of bullshit being more prevalent amongst the educated
because they are more adept at creating it and under more pressure to give
an opinion on topics. A paper that looks very closely at bullshit in academia is
A Kind Word for Bullshit: The Problem of Academic Writingxiii by Philip
Eubanks and John D Schaeffer, professors of English at the Northern Illinois
University.

Eubanks and Schaeffer set out to examine academic bullshit but to do so

must give it a definition. In the beginning of their paper they state We suggest
that some varieties of academic bullshit may be both unavoidable and
beneficial (Eubanks and Schaeffer, 2008, p.372). They admit that the most
apt examples of academic bullshit come from the social sciences and
humanities (Eubanks and Schaeffer 2008, p.373). They quote the humorous
advice from Dave Barryxiv to prospective students of English:

Suppose you are studying Moby-Dick. Anybody with any common

sense would say that Moby-Dick is a big white whale, since the
14 Iona Davis
 characters in the book refer to it as a big white whale roughly eleven
thousand times. So in your paper, you say Moby-Dick is actually the
Republic of Ireland. . . . If you can regularly come up with lunatic
interpretations of simple stories, you should major in Englishxv (Barry
1983, p.114).

Eubanks and Schaeffer explain how his advice is pertinent when it comes to
ideas of academic bullshit. So much time and energy is spent analysing and
interpreting material, making things that otherwise seem simple very complex
and multilayered. When people write in such an exaggerated way it loses
clarity; in other words, it sounded then, and sounds now, like bullshit
(Eubanks and Schaeffer 2008, p.374).

Whilst defining bullshit they stick closely to Frankfurts definition. Eubanks and
Schaeffer state that according to Frankfurts bullshit does not necessarily
involve a misrepresentation of facts but must involve a misrepresentation of
the self- ones feelings thoughts, or attitudes (2008, p. 375). They draw the
conclusion that bullshit may be false, and it may, by accident or by design, be
true. But either way what really matters is that the bullshitter gets away with
something, chiefly a misrepresentation of self and intention (p.375). Frankfurt
argued that bullshit is not as bad as lying (and therefore more tolerated)
because bullshit, unlike lying, does not to tend to personally offend people to
the same extent. Eubanks and Schaeffer draw the connection between this
idea and their ideas of academic bullshit:

Academic bullshit may bear no relationship to what is true or false,

correct or incorrect. But no one is offended by academic irrelevancies
anyway. (Eubanks and Schaeffer 2008, p. 376)

Eubanks and Schaeffer then look at how the word bullshit groups together
different acts that are quite wide-ranging. They begin to discuss the ideas of
prototype semantics:

which [prototype semantics] is based on a cognitive science view of

categorization that says (1) that category members do not necessarily
share a single set of distinguishing features and may exhibit features to
greater and lesser degrees and (2) that some category members are
more typical that is, cognitively salient than others. (Eubanks and
Schaeffer 2008, p.376).

For example if we consider a category like birds which might include

distinguishing features like has feathers, can fly and lays eggs, then a
sparrow in a more prototypical example of a bird than an penguin as it has
distinguishing features closer to the category as a whole than does the
penguin. They then go on to speak about some interesting work by Linda
Coleman and Paul Kay called Prototype Semantics: The English Word Lie.xvi
In their work Coleman and Kay used prototype semantics to define the word
lie, Eubanks and Schaeffer explain Coleman and Kays work as follows:

although lies may have identifiable features such as misrepresentation

of belief, intent to deceive, falseness, and reprehensible motives, not
15 Iona Davis
 all features are always present and not all features are equally
prominent in every instance. In other words, lie is a graded category in
which some examples are more easily and certainly recognized than
others. In prototypical instances of lie, someone makes a false
statement that he or she believes to be false for the purpose of
deceiving another person. But other statements can also be called
liessuch as when someone makes a statement that is factually true
but is intended to conceal his or her motives or intentions. (Eubanks
and Schaeffer 2008, p.366-367)

Taking this idea of prototypicalxvii lie they suggest that this can also be applied
to definition of bullshit. That is that there can be prototypical and non-
prototypical instances of bullshit. Eubanks and Schaeffer state that they want
to gain some sense of how the bullshit prototype rhetorically influences our
attitudes about even very peripheral category members. (Eubanks and
Schaeffer 2008, p. 377)

Prototypical bullshit involves purposeful misrepresentation of the self but its

content is not necessarily a lie (although it may be). Prototypical bullshit will
usually be recognised as bullshit by the listener and the bullshit is often part of
a game between the bullshitter and the listener, like the fishermans tale of the
one that got away. Non-prototypical bullshit will not so clearly exhibit the
distinguishing features of prototypical bullshit and may be more difficult to
recognise as such

Eubanks and Schaeffer then go on to the main focus of their paper, bullshit in
academic writing. They point out that to non-academics, academic writing can
be seen not just bullshit but bullshit of the worst kind. The use of specialist
language can alienate some readers as they simply see it as jargonxviii . A
mixture of an idea of snobbery and lack of knowledge in that particular area
can lead to people sometimes fairly, and sometimes not calling academic
writing bullshit. Academics use of words whose meanings are so abstract
and vague as to seem unrelated to anyones experience (Eubanks and
Schaeffer 2008, p.381) Often the jargon just adds to the confusion of the
reader leading them to develop a dislike for it and label it bullshit. Arguably
worst of all and what frustrates people the most is that Academics, it is said,
believe their own bullshit: They hide behind language that may be as slight, or
exaggerated, or obfuscatory as any sales pitch (Eubanks and Schaeffer
2008, p.382).

Looking further into the topic of the overstated prose style Eubanks and
Schaeffer reference the book Style: Ten lessons in Clarity and Gracexix in
which the author Joseph M. Williams writes:

Generations of students have struggled with dense writing, many

thinking they were not smart enough to grasp the writers deep ideas.
Some have been right about that, but more could have blamed the
writers inability (or refusal) to write clearly (Williams 2002, p.8).

16 Iona Davis
Although academics could write in a clearer way they choose not to so that
their work has the traditional authoritative, intellectual tone. However, this
often makes their writing sound like bullshit and as Eubanks and Schaeffer
point out they are then caught is a vicious cycle: They apparently disregard
the truth by delving wildly into the realm of interpretation. They use odd
language in the service of building a false ethos (2008, p.383) However, they
do go on to say that academic writing rarely intends to deceive and that
writers do have a great number of constraints to which they have to abide.

The academic writer must make claims and prove them according to
the conventions of the discipline. The writer must marshal supporting
information and arguments and present them in an approved format.
The level of writing must be congruent with that of other publications in
the field (Eubanks and Schaeffer 2008, p.384)

They speak about gamesmanshipxx within the academic environment

the reward system encourages the academic writer to misrepresent

him- or herself by emphasizing if not exaggerating the influence of what
he or she has writtenThis academic gamesmanship is liable to the
charge of bullshit insofar as the persona or ethos created by that tone
may be completely different from the actual disposition of the writer.
In short, what academics would call prototypical academic writing may
be bullshit, but it is not prototypical bullshit. It may, however, be a
variant sort of bullshitbullshit on the edge of the category (Eubanks
and Schaeffer 2008, p.383-4)

Eubanks and Schaeffer then make a similar point to Frankfurts that it is

impossible for someone to know everything about everything. They say being
in an academic community it is almost a requirement that one has the ability
to discuss matters about which one possesses few facts as upon knowledge
of facts themselves (Eubanks and Schaeffer 2008, p.386). We use bullshit to
plug the gaps in our knowledge.

G.A Cohen
Gerald Allan Cohen a Marxist political philosopher wrote a follow up paper to
Frankfurts On Bullshit called Deeper into Bullshit looking deeper into what
he believed it to be. As he states in his first paragraph:I decided to focus on
Frankfurts work on bullshit, partly because it is so original and so interesting,
and partly because bullshit, and the struggle against it, have played a large
role in my own personal life xxi(Cohen 2002, p.321).

Although Cohen was originally inspired by Frankfurts work, he found his

definition of bullshit lacking. Cohen referred back to the definition of bullshit in
the Oxford English dictionary there were two definitions given for the word
bullshit;

bullshit n. & v. coarse sl.n. 1 (Often as int.) nonsense, rubbish.

17 Iona Davis
2 trivial or insincere talk or writing.v. intr. (-shitted, -shitting) talk nonsense;
bluff. Bullshitter n. Cohen 2002, p.321).

To simplify

Definition 1: n. Nonsense, rubbish.

Definition 2: v. Trivial or insincere talk or writing

Cohen argued that Frankfurts bullshit only deals with definition two. That is
that it is only concerned with the person being aware that they are speaking
bullshit: bullshit is constituted as such through being the product of discourse
governed by a certain state of mind (Cohen 2002, p.324). Whereas definition
1 is about the content of what is being said and does not refer to the bullshit
producers state of mind, meaning that just because the bullshitter is saying
something that is bullshit it does not necessarily mean that they are
intentionally or knowingly bullshitting. Cohen states that definition 1 supplies
an output-centred definition of the noun: the character of the process that
produces bullshit is immaterial here. (Cohen 2002, p.324)

Cohen then goes on to speak about how he believes some lying can actually
be a form of bullshitting, he believes Frankfurts contrast between lying and
bullshitting to be Malconstructed (Cohen 2002, p.324).

He then goes on to discuss how it is possible that a person with indifference

for the truth can sometimes say something that is true, and therefore
someone who does care about what is true may inadvertently say something
that is bullshit. For example, a person may hear something that is bullshit but
they take it to be the truth and then pass it on. Cohen points out they
themselves are not bullshitters as they have no mal-intent and they are saying
what they believe to be true, it is just the content that is bullshit.

Cohen uses these terms Unclarifiable unclarity and rubbish (Cohen 2002,
p.333) to typify types of Bullshit:

Unclarifiable unclarity is one such feature. Rubbish, in the sense of

arguments that are grossly deficient either in logic or in sensitivity to
empirical evidence, is another (Cohen 2002, p.333).

By unclarifiable unclarity he means utterances where the speaker has no

knowledge about the truth or otherwise of what they are saying and which are
also such that no one else could reasonable prove or disprove it. For example
the claim one day I am going to be a great graphic designer is something
that I or anyone else cannot know for sure but which neither can anyone
disprove. This statement has unclarifiable unclarity and is therefore bullshit
accord to Cohen, but it is not rubbish.

Rubbish on the other hand, is either logically inconsistent or at odds with the
available evidence and can thus be provable and identified as such. For
instance, if I claim I am the fastest runner in Chelsea College it can be

18 Iona Davis
proven Im not, and the statement can be classified as being rubbish and thus
also bullshit.

(Cohen)-bullshitters seek and rely on unclarifiability, whereas innocent

speakers of bullshit are merely victims of it. Aim-bullshitters resort to
bullshit when they have reason to want what they say to be
unintelligible, for example, in order to impress, or in order to give
spurious support to a claim: the motives for producing bullshit vary.
(Cohen 2002, p.335).

At this point it starts to become a little confusing so Cohen put this table in his
footnotes to help clarify what he is saying. He refers to definition one of the
bullshit as Cohen bullshit and definition two as Frankfurts bullshit:

Typical Corresponding Primary Essence

context of OED definition Locus
utterance

Frankfurt Everyday life 2 Activity Indifference

to the truth
Bullshit

Cohen The academy 1 Output Unclarifiability

bullshit
xxii

After a little confusion in his paper Cohen sums up quite nicely with:

We should criticize the product, which is visible, and not the process,
which is not. (Cohen 2002, p.335).

Ben Kotzee
Ben Kotzee wrote a paper for the South African Journal of Philosophy in 2007
titled Our Vision and our Mission: Bullshit, Assertion and Beliefxxiii in which
he says:

Frankfurt points out, however, that bullshit is not always just careless
talk. Sometimes bullshit is very carefully crafted: he notes that, in
enterprises like advertising, public relations and politics (amongst
others) people take great care in ensuring that they will mislead others
about their own feelings and attitudes, without quite lying: much
thought and preparation rather than very little is the hallmark of this
smooth-talking bullshit. The exceptional people capable of fooling
others in this way without their noticing or caring, are called bullshit
artists (Kotzee 2007)

19 Iona Davis
Kotzee discusses Frankfurt-bullshit and Cohen-bullshitters even with his
terminology there it does help clarify the ideas of both, that is that Frankfurts
ideas of bullshit are more to do with the person and their intentions and
Cohens bullshit is to do with the nonsensical content of what they are saying.

G.A. Reisch
George A. Reisch Published a book with Gary L Hardcastle entitled Bullshit
and Philosophy: Guaranteed to Get Perfect Results Every Timexxiv this book
was complied of 16 papers written around the subject of bullshit. In this book
was a paper written by Reisch The Pragmatics of Bullshit, Intelligently
Designed (p. 33-47) he looks at both Frankfurts and Cohens definitions and
finds that they are both too narrow as he believes bullshit to be a Pragmatic
phenomenon (Reisch 2006, p.42).

Reisch uses the intelligent design movementxxv as example that illustrates that
bullshitters do not always have an indifference to truth. He points out that
Frankfurt names politics, public relations and advertising as the most
indisputable and classic paradigms of the concept xxvi (p.22) He draws
parallels, linking this idea to the intelligent design movement;

Just as the advertiser needs us to buy her product, the politician needs our
vote the ID movement needs us to support and approve its proposals for
biology and high-school science teaching. Like politicians and advertisers,
moreover, ID claims that it is in our interest to do so. Just as your laundry will
be cleaner with the right detergent your childs education will benefit from
bringing ID into the public school classroom and teaching the
controversyxxvii(Reisch 2006, p.35).

Reisch goes on to talk about how although the ID movement obviously has an
evangelical Christian agenda it goes to efforts to be scientific and
theoretically sophisticated are primarily efforts to appear non-religious

(Reisch 2006, p.35).

ID is a kind of creationism, the promotion of which in public school

classrooms is forbidden by the United States Constitution. Thus went
the opinion of Judge John E. Jones, who wrote in his decision in the
case of Dover, Pennsylvania vs. Kitzmiller, that ID is a religious view, a
mere re-labelling of creationism, and not a scientific theory since the
Kizmiller case was the first major legal hurdle that the ID movement
faced, it would appear that, as the saying goes, this here bullshit wont
fly (Reisch 2006, p.37).

After defining that the ID movement was in fact a kind of bullshit Reisch goes
on to discuss that bullshit does not necessary, as Frankfurt though, have to
come from someone who has an indifference to the truth as the example of
ID illustrates prominently, bullshitters conceal not some indifference to the
truth but instead a commitment to other truths and, usually an agenda
(Reisch 2006, p.38).

20 Iona Davis
Reisch goes on to write that it is not the bullshitters regard to the truth but
rather the use of casual hyperbolic, or inconsequential claims to unobtrusively
probe or promote other truths of concerns (Reisch 2006, p.39) The same can
also be said for advertisers and politicians, they draw our attention ostensibly
to one set of truths and purposes while in fact quietly engaging us about
different matters (Reisch 2006, p.39).

Reisch explains that the bullshit is artfully crafted by the bullshitter it:

consists in the orchestration of at least two different concerns and

corresponding types of engagement between the bullshitter and
bullshitee, one concealed within or downplayed alongside the
otherthe bullshitter has co-ordinated them in an effort to maximise
his or her chances of accomplishing certain practical goals (Reisch
2006, p.40).

Reisch discusses both Frankfurt and Cohen bullshit, but sees both definitions
as too narrow:

The difference between their definitions of bullshit- Frankfurts

concerning truth and Cohens concerning meaning is narrow. Both
seek the defining characteristics of bullshit in semantics. But we learn
more about bullshit by defining it as an essential pragmaticxxviii
phenomenon (Reisch 2006, p.42).

Reisch also attempts, like Frankfurt, to give reason for why we tolerate
bullshit, he offers this answer:

We tolerate bullshit because it indirectly expresses basic cultural

values that we admire and uphold. That tolerance does not extend to
bullshits insincerity, of course, but it does extend to the myriad beliefs,
practices, and discourses that serve as bullshits raw materials
(Reisch 2006, p.45).

Reisch ends his paper with a quite positive note about bullshit:

I suspect it will only be possible to understand the seemingly magical

power of language to persuade and manipulate individual and popular
opinion when we begin to appreciate bullshit as a specific and precise
creation, like a poem or symphony with multiple, interconnected layers
of meaning that are intelligently designed and artfully orchestrated
(Reisch 2006, p.46-7).

21 Iona Davis
Visually Communicated Bullshit
So far I have discussed bullshit mainly in terms of language. The majority of
the research and discussion around bullshit focuses on the spoken or written
message. However I believe the same concepts and ideas of verbal bullshit
can be applied to visual communication, such as the intent to get an agenda
across, or something that is unconcerned with the truth or even something
being complete nonsense.

Also, all the research has shown that bullshit not only requires a level of
creativity but bullshit itself allows the bullshitter creativity and freedom.

Michael Bierut wrote a short essay called On (Design) Bullshitxxix , after the
success of Frankfurts book Bierut saw that bullshit has become a subject of
legitimate inquiry (Bierut 2007, p.176) so he went on to briefly discuss bullshit
within the realm of design It follows that every design presentation is
inevitably, at least in part, an exercise in bullshit (Bierut 2007, p.176).

Similarly to what Frankfurt said about almost using bullshit as a filler to skim
over the gaps in our knowledge, in design there are a lot of intuitive decisions
and things can be so subjective that bullshit is almost a tool for glazing over
these, as you cannot simply say that you do not know why you have made a
certain design choice. Bierut points out into this vacuum rushes bullshit
(Bierut 2007, p.176). Similar to having a lack of knowledge in a certain area
and having to bullshit, Bierut points out often creatives bullshit may be
produced because they lack confidence in their ideas and intuitive skills.

Bierut touches on beliefs and rules designers have, which have no real basis
in truth, but they are beliefs nonetheless:

Theories about the symbolic qualities of colour or typefaces:

improvable claims about the historical inevitability of certain shapes,
fanciful forced marriages of arbitrary design elements (Bierut 2007,
p.176).

Bierut discusses the idea of the sole intention of the bullshitter is to get their
agenda across and obviously the agenda for a designer is getting your client
to do it the way you like it (Bierut 2007, p.176). This statement does seem a
little tongue in cheek. But I think it could definitely be argued that the designer
does have the sole intention of getting the idea they are trying to
communicate across, and I would argue with little regard to the truth, because
the truth is even less important when you are working visually as you are
often creating things from your own mind. The work of creatives does not
necessarily need to have any basis in reality.

Bullshitting is probably more prevalent within the creative process as it shares

many characteristics with bullshit. The freedom creativity brings has many
parallels with the freedoms that bullshit can bring. Bierut observes that
Calling bullshit on a designer, then, stings all the more because it contains an
element of accuracy (Bierut 2007, p.177).

22 Iona Davis
Conclusion
Taking account of research and synthesising my thoughts, it seems to me that
bullshit can be defined from two different perspectives: one relating to process
and the other to content, which broadly aligns to what Cohen calls
respectively Frankfurt and Cohen bullshit.

Frankfurt bullshit is defined by the process of the bullshitter who sets out to
present a particular image in support of a particular agenda. It is this process,
not the content that makes this bullshit. The content may be truthful or not,
this is of no concern to the bullshitter as long as it supports their agenda.
Those spouting Frankfurt bullshit will generally be aware that they are
bullshitting but it may be difficult for an observer to detect this when delivered
by a skilled and well-prepared practitioner. Sales and political bullshit is
typically Frankfurt bullshit.

Cohen bullshit is defined by the content, which is typically unclarifiable

unclarity of maybe just plain rubbish. Cohen bullshit can always be exposed
as such by analysis of its logical consistency and/or available evidence, but in
many cases these flaws may not be obvious and those spouting this sort of
bullshit may be repeating something that they dont realise is bullshit. Much
academic bullshit is Cohen bullshit. Many of those spouting it actually believe
it!

While some fundamentals of design, such as ideas to do with colour and

mood and shapes and gender do have some root in the science of human
perception, psychology and neuroscience, our views about what constitutes
good design have as much to do with culture and fashion, and in particular
what the community of designers believe to be good design. `Inevitably
much of what is generally considered to be good design falls within the
definition of unclarifiable unclarity (Cohen 2002, p.333) and is therefore
bullshit.

According to Frankfurt, the bullshitters one aim is to get their agenda across
with a lack of concern for the difference between truth and falsity. There is a
strong parallel with what we as designers do. As designers we are problem
solvers: our job is to get our message across, and I think that like bullshitters
we dont always have a regard for the truth. Especially as creatives, a lot of
our skills are intuitive rather than based on solid scientific fact or objective
evidence. Much of our knowledge is intrinsic; an experienced designer just
knows whats right (what learning theorist call unconscious competencexxx ).
This sort of knowledge is hard to communicate verbally and when we try and
do so a chasm can open up to be filled with bullshit.

Frankfurt also says that he believes bullshit allows one to be creative as you
are free to create whatever you want, unlike the liars who have their own
constraints because they are still tied to the truth, despite perhaps trying to
pervert it:

23 Iona Davis
 The liar is limited by his commitment to saying something that conflicts
with the truth, so there is a constraint upon him which he has to
respect. Whereas the Bullshitter who doesnt care about the truth can
go anywhere he likes and there is a kind of panoramic view that he can
take that the liar cantxxxi (Frankfurt 2006)

Frankfurt also talks about the idea of a bullshit artistxxxii because bullshit
enables creativity - it is something that can be crafted:

[bullshit] is more expansive and independent, with more spacious

opportunities for improvisation, colour, and imaginative play (Frankfurt 2005).

As creatives we have the same freedom to express ideas that do not

necessarily have to have any grounding in reality. The imagination and the
imagination of the bullshitter can offer the same range of ideas: [The
bullshitter] can draw any kind of picture and kind of panorama of beliefs that
serves his purpose36 (Frankfurt, 200)

An understanding of bullshit also has a role to play in the creative and critical
processes. We can use our insight into bullshit to help determine if the
designer is trying to bullshit us (Frankfurt bullshit). What is their agenda? Are
they seeking to mislead us or cover up something? What are they trying to
say about themselves? Is the content bullshit? (Cohen bullshit) Is it logically
consistent? Is it supported by the available evidence? Does the designer
realise they are a bullshitter or are they unintentionally regurgitating bullshit as
the result of their own inadequate critical appraisal of accepted wisdom?
Asking questions like this can enable us to dissect and closely look at design
for the better.

Designers discuss their ideas amongst themselves and with clients,

particularly in the early stages of the process when we are attempting to
generate ideas that will be effective. This spit-balling of ideas reminds me very
much of the bull sessionsxxxiii that Frankfurt describes:

What tends to go on in a bull session is that the participants try out

various thoughts and attitudes in order to see how it feels to hear
themselves saying such things and in order to discover how others
respond, without being assumed that they are committed to what they
say (Frankfurt 2005)

So maybe a kinder word for some aspect of bullshitting might be

brainstorming and this is very important in the creative process. We throw
out random ideas will no initial concern for their validity they are bullshit
but we then seek to winnow them down removing the chaff and developing
the grain, or just to get some reassurance if we are lacking confidence in our
ideas.

Eubanks and Schaefferxxxiv talk about academic bullshit amongst students:

24 Iona Davis
becoming a member of the community of scholars depends at least as much
on the ability to discuss matters about which one possesses few facts as upon
knowledge of facts themselves39 (Eubanks and Schaeffer 2008, p.386).

Here they are discussing that when people are in an academic setting they
will inevitably bullshit because they have gaps in their knowledge. The same
occurs in a creative environment, especially in an environment where people
have specialised in certain areas and only have a passing knowledge of other
specialities. Despite not having a comprehensive knowledge of certain areas
it is important to engage in the discussion about them regardless.

I think it is clear that not all bullshit is bad or with malicious intention. Eubanks
and Schaeffer talk about a benign bullshit:

We must acknowledge that benign bullshit is inevitable when people are

attempting to write well (Eubanks and Schaeffer 2008, p.387).

Jim Holt wrote an article for The New Yorker about Frankfurts On Bullshit, he
also discusses how bullshit may not be such a bad thing:

Why should we worry about whether our beliefs deserve to be called

true? Deep down, we might prefer to believe whatever helps us
achieve our ends and enables us to flourish, regardless of whether it is
truexxxv (Holt 2005).

I also found some interesting parallels in Reischs essayxxxvi . He wrote that

An effective bullshitter will make use of the diverse beliefs and convictions
that populate our world. (Reisch 2006, p.38). Effective designers also make
use of the diverse beliefs and convictions of their audience,

Although of course not all design is advertising, I think designers think and
work in a similar way to that Reisch has laid out when speaking about bullshit
and advertising:

effective advertising and product packaging rests on the truths

embraced within the advertising industry about how graphic design,
word associations, celebrity endorsement and other devices speak to
consumers thoughts about themselves - their self image, social
aspirations, and feelings of belonging and group identity (Reisch 2006,
p.39.)

Reisch also touches on how manufacturing bullshit has a very creative

element:

Bullshit on the other hand, engages us differently. Instead of

responding to our own needs and concerns, it seeks to create needs
or perceptions with which it can manipulate (Reisch 2006, p.43).

So benign bullshit can come from someone whose agenda is not

fundamentally at odds with that of their audience, they just bullshit to get it
across with the means justifying the end, or from someone who unwittingly

25 Iona Davis
believes bullshit to be true. I do not want to get too deeply in to what truth
really is, but it is interesting to consider the beliefs people hold. It reminded
me of an interesting quote from Donald Davidson: Nothing can count as a
reason for holding a belief except another belief.xxxvii

With bullshit there is limitlessness in what we can create and express; the
same can be said for the creativity we encounter in design.

Bullshit is so entwined with the world of design. In many ways bullshit can be
a very playful thing, Eubanks and Schaefferxxxviii talk about the ludicxxxix quality
bullshit has. It is often playful and not taken very seriously, which is probably
one of the reasons why it is so widely tolerated.

However, the more sinister aspect relates to the bullshitters intent to

obfuscate or conceal their real purpose. In design this may involve offering
something inauthentic, lazy and without real or lasting value or beauty. In
many respects it is an unethical, manipulative and indicates a degree of
contempt or disrespect for the recipient.

Despite this I think rather than using bullshit as a derogatory term and trying
to shun it (as so many attempt to do with their no bullshit slogans) we should
in fact embrace it and use it as a tool. Bullshit actually has many positive
characteristics, such as the freedom and creativity bullshit enables us to have,
is opens us up to an infinite world of possibilities. With bullshit constrained
with what is real or true, we are able to use our imaginations to conjure up
anything we like that will fit our purpose.

When we see that bullshit is not always there to deceive us we can use it and
be playful with it, using it as a way to generate ideas without having to
concern ourselves with facts of truth or falsity. So I say go forth and embrace
bullshit as something good and use it as a means to unlocking your full
creativity.

26 Iona Davis
Bibliography
Black, M. 1983. The Prevalence of Humbug. In: The Presence of Humbug
and Other Essays. Available from http://www.ditext.com/black/humbug
{Accessed 23 November 2011]

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1958). Philosophical Investigations. 3rd ed. Trans. G.

E. M. Anscombe. New York: Macmillan.

Penny, Laura. (2005) Your Call Is Important to Us: The Truth about Bullshit.
New York: Crown.

Perry, William. (2003) "Examsmanship and the Liberal Arts." The Dolphin
Reader. Ed. Douglas Hunt. 6th ed. Boston: Houghton, p.60-71.

Secor, Marie, and Lynda Walsh. (2004) "A Rhetorical Perspective on the
Sokal Hoax: Genre, Style, and Context." Written Communication 21.1 p.69-
91.

Linda Coleman and Paul Kay. (1981) Prototype Semantics: The English
Word Lie. Language Vol. 57, No. 1. p.26-44. published by: Linguistic Society
of America, accessed http://www.jstor.org/stable/414285

Eubanks, Philip and John D. Schaeffer. "A Kind Word for Bullshit: The
Problem of Academic Writing." CCC59.3 (2008): 372-388. Available from:
http://writing2.richmond.edu/training/383/383restricted/bullshit.pdf [Accessed
27th December 201]

Barry, Dave. 1982 College, Anyone? A Veterans Crash Course in Campus

Survival. Chicago Tribune 24 July p. I14

Holt, J. 2005. Say Anything The New Yorker, 22nd August. Accessed online
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/08/22/050822crat_atlarge?currentPa
ge=5. [Accessed 2 October 2011]

Joseph M. Williams, 2002. Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace (7th
Edition). 7 Edition. Longman.

Hardcastle, G. L. Reisch G, A. (2006). Bullshit and Philosophy: Guaranteed to

Get Perfect Results Every Time (Popular Culture and Philosophy). Edition.
Open Court.

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition

2009 William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 HarperCollins

Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 Available at [www.
http://dictionary.reference.com]

27 Iona Davis
Princeton University press. (2011). On Bullshit. [Online Video]. 01 September.
Availablefrom:http://coblitz.codeen.org/press.princeton.edu/video/frankfurt/Ent
ire.mov. [Accessed: 20 November 2011].

Towards a universal crackpot standard - 28 April 2010 - New Scientist.

[ONLINE] Available at:http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627582.100-
towards-a-universal-crackpot-standard.html?. [Accessed 06 January 2012].

Frankfurt, H. G. (2005). On Bullshit. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Mark Molaro. (2007). Harry Frankfurt talks about Jon Stewart/Stephen

Colbert. [Online Video]. 18 May. Available from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-
7IW8CxgXY&feature=plcp&context=C29f40UDOEgsToPDskJEHB0tiv4CS0Ml
8UivO8KP. [Accessed: 01 November 2011].

Bierut, M, 2007. Seventy-nine Short Essays on Design. 1st ed. New York:
Princeton Architectural Press.

Lincoln Patrick Furrow. 2012. Lincoln Patrick Furrow. [ONLINE] Available

at:http://cargocollective.com/lincolnfurrow#390982/Bullshit-in-Design.
[Accessed 07 January 2012].

Doug LeMoine Art / Robert Irwin, BS, and the importance of questions.
2012. Doug LeMoine Art / Robert Irwin, BS, and the importance of
questions. [ONLINE] Available at: http://douglemoine.com/2006/11/art-robert-
irwin-bs-and-the-importance-of-questions/. [Accessed 07 January 2012].

Jess Gibson. (2009). America Is F*cked.......(Graphically at least). [Online

Video]. 20 August. Available from: http://vimeo.com/1465284. [Accessed: 15
December 2011].

Experimental Theology: On Bullshit, Psychology, and Theology, Part 2:

Deeper Into Bullshit. 2012. Experimental Theology: On Bullshit, Psychology,
and Theology, Part 2: Deeper Into Bullshit. [ONLINE] Available
at:http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2007/01/on-bullshit-psychology-
and-theology_15.html. [Accessed 07 January 2012].

no bullshit. 2012. no bullshit. [ONLINE] Available at: http://no-bullshit-

blog.blogspot.com/. [Accessed 07 January 2012].

bullshit KATJA BAK / ARTIST / ILLUSTRATOR / GRAPHIC DESIGNER.

[ONLINE] Available at: http://katjabak.com/category/bullshit/. [Accessed 07
January 2012].

The Bullshit Revival | DeepDyve. 2012. The Bullshit Revival | DeepDyve.

[ONLINE] Available at: http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/duke-university-press/the-
bullshit-revival-UDeCu3wZDI. [Accessed 07 January 2012].

Psychoanalytic Bullshit. | Mendeley. 2012. Psychoanalytic Bullshit. |

Mendeley. [ONLINE] Available at:

28 Iona Davis
http://www.mendeley.com/research/psychoanalytic-bullshit/. [Accessed 07
January 2012].

Ian Bogost - Gamification is Bullshit. 2012. Ian Bogost - Gamification is

Bullshit. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.bogost.com/blog/gamification_is_bullshit.shtml. [Accessed 07
January 2012].

Gamification, Behaviorism and Bullshit. 2012. Gamification, Behaviorism and

Bullshit. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://radoff.com/blog/2011/08/09/gamification-behaviorism-bullshit/.
[Accessed 07 January 2012].

The Language Of Advertising - Vocabulary - Postscript | Linguarama. 2012.

The Language Of Advertising - Vocabulary - Postscript | Linguarama.
[ONLINE] Available at: http://www.linguarama.com/ps/293-6.htm. [Accessed
07 January 2012].

HANDOUT: The Language of Advertising Claims. 2012. HANDOUT: The

Language of Advertising Claims. [ONLINE] Available
at:http://home.olemiss.edu/~egjbp/comp/ad-claims.html. [Accessed 07
January 2012].

Wordplay: The Language of Advertising | Online Advertising Blog

BuySellAds.com. 2012. Wordplay: The Language of Advertising | Online
Advertising Blog BuySellAds.com. [ONLINE] Available
at:http://blog.buysellads.com/2011/11/wordplay-the-language-of-advertising.
[Accessed 07 January 2012].

Operative Words: Truth is Stronger Than Fiction. 2012. Operative Words:

Truth is Stronger Than Fiction. [ONLINE] Available
at:http://operativewords.blogspot.com/2010/04/truth-is-stronger-than-
fiction_28.html. [Accessed 07 January 2012].

brand authenticity . 2012. brand authenticity . [ONLINE] Available

at:http://www.brandinsightblog.com/2010/04/28/brand-authenticity-
%E2%80%94-keeping-it-real-honest-genuine-and-true/. [Accessed 07
January 2012].

Two Kinds of Jargon . 2012. Two Kinds of Jargon . [ONLINE] Available

at:http://imaginativeuniversal.com/blog/post/2006/12/21/Two-Kinds-of-
Jargon.aspx. [Accessed 07 January 2012].

Social Media is Bullshit | Build Internet. 2012. Social Media is Bullshit | Build
Internet. [ONLINE] Available at: http://buildinternet.com/2010/03/social-media-
is-bullshit/. [Accessed 07 January 2012].

Thinking in air: "A kind word for bullsh*t". 2012. Thinking in air: "A kind word
for bullsh*t". [ONLINE] Available at:
http://thinkinginair.blogspot.com/2008/03/kind-word-for-bullshit.html.
[Accessed 07 January 2012].
29 Iona Davis
A Critique of Pure BS | Inside Higher Ed. 2012. A Critique of Pure BS | Inside
Higher Ed. [ONLINE] Available
at:http://www.insidehighered.com/views/mclemee/mclemee52. [Accessed 07
January 2012].

Bullshit Job Job Title Generator. 2012. Bullshit Job Job Title Generator.
[ONLINE] Available at: http://www.bullshitjob.com/title/. [Accessed 07 January
2012].

The Times of Bullshit. 2012. The Times of Bullshit. [ONLINE] Available

at:http://thetimesofbullshit.blogspot.com/. [Accessed 07 January 2012].

The Bullshit Revival (David Kellogg) - Academia.edu . 2012. The Bullshit

Revival (David Kellogg) - Academia.edu . [ONLINE] Available at:
http://coastal.academia.edu/DavidKellogg/Papers/89530/The_Bullshit_Revival
. [Accessed 07 January 2012].

i
bullshit. (n.d.). Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved January 04, 2012, from

Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bullshit

ii
Bullshit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia. 2012. Bullshit - Wikipedia, the free

encyclopaedia. [ONLINE] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit. [Accessed 04

January 2012].

iii
See page 15 below for more a description of prototype semantics

iv
Eubanks, Philip and John D. Schaeffer. "A Kind Word for Bullshit: The Problem of Academic

Writing." CCC59.3 (2008): 372-388

v
Princeton University press. (2011). On Bullshit. [Online Video]. 01 September.

Availablefrom:http://coblitz.codeen.org/press.princeton.edu/video/frankfurt/Entire.mov.

[Accessed: 20 November 2011].

vi
Schrank, Jeffery. HANDOUT: The Language of Advertising Claims. 2011. HANDOUT: The

Language of Advertising Claims. [ONLINE] Available at:

http://home.olemiss.edu/~egjbp/comp/ad-claims.html. [Accessed 28 December 2011].

30 Iona Davis
vii
Towards a universal crackpot standard - 28 April 2010 - New Scientist. [ONLINE] Available
at:http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627582.100-towards-a-universal-crackpot-
standard.html?. [Accessed 06 January 2012].
viii
Frankfurt, H. G. (2005). On Bullshit. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

ix
Max Black, 1983. The Prevalence of Humbug and Other Essays. 1St Edition Edition.

Cornell Univ Pr.

x
Princeton University press. (2011). On Bullshit. [Online Video]. 01 September.
Availablefrom:http://coblitz.codeen.org/press.princeton.edu/video/frankfurt/Entire.mov.
[Accessed: 20 November 2011].
xi
Princeton University press. (2011). On Bullshit. [Online Video]. 01 September.

Availablefrom:http://coblitz.codeen.org/press.princeton.edu/video/frankfurt/Entire.mov.

[Accessed: 20 November 2011].

xii
Princeton University press. (2011). On Bullshit. [Online Video]. 01 September.

Availablefrom:http://coblitz.codeen.org/press.princeton.edu/video/frankfurt/Entire.mov.

[Accessed: 20 November 2011].

xiii
Eubanks, Philip and John D. Schaeffer. "A Kind Word for Bullshit: The Problem of

Academic Writing." CCC59.3 (2008): 372-388

xiv
Pulitzer Prize-winning American author and columnist

xv
Barry, Dave. 1982 College, Anyone? A Veterans Crash Course in Campus Survival.

Chicago Tribune 24 July p. I14

xvi
Linda Coleman and Paul Kay. Prototype Semantics: The English Word Lie. Language

Vol. 57, No. 1 (Mar., 1981), p. 26-44. published by: Linguistic Society of America, accessed

http://www.jstor.org/stable/414285

31 Iona Davis
xvii
Prototypical is an adjective of the noun prototype

noun

1. one of the first units manufactured of a product, which is tested so that the design can

be changed if necessary before the product is manufactured commercially

2. a person or thing that serves as an example of a type

3. biology the ancestral or primitive form of a species or other group; an archetype.

xviii
Jargon n

1. specialised language concerned with a particular subject, culture, or profession

2. language characterized by pretentious syntax, vocabulary, or meaning

3. gibberish

4. another word for pidgin

Source : Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition

2009 William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 HarperCollins

Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009

xix
Joseph M. Williams, 2002. Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace (7th Edition). 7 Edition.

Longman

xx
gamesmanship

Informal the art of winning games or defeating opponents by clever or cunning practices

without actually cheating

32 Iona Davis
Source : Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition

2009 William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 HarperCollins

Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009

xxi
Cohen, G.A 2002. Deeper into Bullshit, The Contours of Agency: Essays on Themes from
Harry Frankfurt. Edition. A Bradford Book.
xxii
Cohen, G.A 2002. Deeper into Bullshit p.338, The Contours of Agency: Essays on

Themes from Harry Frankfurt. Edition. A Bradford Book.

xxiii
Kotzee, B. (2007) Our Vision and our Mission: Bullshit, Assertion and Belief [internet]
Available from http://cogprints.org/5802/1/Kotzee.pdf [Accessed 3 January 2011]
xxiv
Hardcastle, G. L. Reisch G, A. (2006). The Pragmatics of Bullshit, Intelligently designed

Bullshit and Philosophy: Guaranteed to Get Perfect Results Every Time (Popular Culture and

Philosophy). Edition. Open Court. (p.33-47)

xxv
The intelligent design movement is a neo-creationist religious campaign for broad social,

academic and political change to promote and support the idea of "intelligent design," which

asserts that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an

intelligent cause, not a possibly undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] Its chief

activities are a campaign to promote public awareness of this concept, the lobbying of

policymakers to include its teaching in high school science classes, and legal action, either to

defend such teaching or to remove barriers otherwise preventing it.[3][4] The movement

arose out of the previous Christian fundamentalist and evangelistic creation science

movement in the United States,[5] and is driven by a small group of proponents. Source:

Intelligent design movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia. 2012. Intelligent design

movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia. [ONLINE] Available at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement. [Accessed 06 January 2012].

xxvi .
Frankfurt, H. G. (2005). On Bullshit. Princeton: Princeton University Press

xxvii
Teach the Controversy is the name of a Discovery Institute campaign to promote

intelligent design Source: Teach the Controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia. 2012.

33 Iona Davis
Teach the Controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia. [ONLINE] Available at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy. [Accessed 06 January 2012].

xxviii
pragmatic

adj

1. advocating behaviour that is dictated more by practical consequences than by theory

or dogma

2. philosophy of or relating to pragmatism

3. involving everyday or practical business

4. of or concerned with the affairs of a state or community

5. rare interfering or meddlesome; officious

Source: Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition

2009 William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 HarperCollins

Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009

xxix
Michael Bierut, 2007. On (Design) Bullshit Seventy-nine Short Essays on Design. 1st

Edition. Princeton Architectural Press. (p.175-77)

xxx
Unconscious Competence

The individual has had so much practice with a skill that it has become "second nature" and

can be performed easily. As a result, the skill can be performed while executing another task.

The individual may be able to teach it to others, depending upon how and when it was

learned.

34 Iona Davis
Source: s - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 2012. Four stages of competence - Wikipedia,

the free encyclopedia. [ONLINE] Available at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence. [Accessed 11 January 2012].

xxxi
Princeton University press. (2011). On Bullshit. [Online Video]. 01 September.

Availablefrom:http://coblitz.codeen.org/press.princeton.edu/video/frankfurt/Entire.mov.

[Accessed: 20 November 2011].

xxxii
Frankfurt, H. G. (2005). On Bullshit. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

xxxiii
bull session

informal chiefly ( US ), ( Canadian ) an informal discussion, often among men

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition

2009 William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 HarperCollins

Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 Available at [www.

http://dictionary.reference.com]

xxxiv
Eubanks, Philip and John D. Schaeffer. "A Kind Word for Bullshit: The Problem of

Academic Writing." CCC59.3 (2008): 372-388

xxxv
Holt, J. 2005. Say Anything The New Yorker, 22nd August. Accessed online

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/08/22/050822crat_atlarge?currentPage=5 .

[Accessed 2 October 2011]

xxxvi
Hardcastle, G. L. Reisch G, A. (2006). The Pragmatics of Bullshit, Intelligently designed

Bullshit and Philosophy: Guaranteed to Get Perfect Results Every Time (Popular Culture and

Philosophy). Edition. Open Court. (p.33-47)

35 Iona Davis
xxxvii
Davidson, D., 1986, A Coherence Theory of Truth and Knowledge, Truth And

Interpretation, Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson,

xxxviii
Eubanks, Philip and John D. Schaeffer. "A Kind Word for Bullshit: The Problem of

Academic Writing." CCC59.3 (2008): 372-388

xxxix
ludic

adj

literary playful

[C20: from French ludique, from Latin ldus game]

36 Iona Davis