96:
through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant—but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.
116:." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and 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." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.
1434:
134:
The special threat of this fallacy lies in that it applies equally to the person who errs as to that person's opponent. Taken to its logical consequence, it implies that all arguments are unreliable and hence undermines all rational thought. Lewis says, "Until
Bulverism is crushed, reason can play no
111:
he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography
95:
Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work
112:
of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father—who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third—"Oh you say that
38:
with presumption or condescension. The
Bulverist assumes a speaker's argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker came to make that mistake or to be so silly (even if the opponent's claim is actually right) by
138:
The remedy, according to Lewis, is to accept that some reasoning is not tainted by the reasoner. Some arguments are valid and some conclusions true, regardless of the identity and motives of the one who argues them.
58:
after an imaginary character to poke fun at a serious error in thinking that, he alleged, frequently occurred in a variety of religious, political, and philosophical debates.
69:. One accuses an argument of being wrong on the basis of the arguer's identity or motive (real or presumed), but these are irrelevant to the argument's validity or truth.
551:
556:
135:
effective part in human affairs. Each side snatches it early as a weapon against the other; but between the two reason itself is discredited."
934:
591:
433:
745:
1353:
561:
1463:
1458:
1389:
1365:
954:
966:
710:
976:
1384:
941:
837:
1379:
1219:
687:
523:
479:
1399:
1214:
730:
426:
1321:
1311:
1261:
1235:
1011:
885:
852:
753:
735:
635:
484:
466:
66:
1359:
1347:
1327:
1316:
1231:
1044:
1020:
842:
798:
650:
576:
489:
1468:
1374:
1278:
1242:
1157:
1113:
949:
880:
670:
499:
474:
399:
1252:
1151:
1098:
1074:
997:
900:
832:
758:
571:
566:
543:
518:
1437:
1370:
1184:
1069:
1054:
1001:
961:
910:
847:
806:
783:
763:
666:
510:
494:
419:
178:
153:
31:
1256:
1093:
1083:
1059:
1036:
992:
918:
870:
828:
788:
630:
625:
447:
234:
214:
1406:
1247:
1146:
1088:
1026:
821:
700:
695:
680:
645:
605:
533:
528:
226:
148:
44:
1127:
1103:
923:
895:
875:
723:
691:
675:
193:
163:
158:
87:
77:
Lewis wrote about this in a 1941 essay, which was later expanded and published in 1944 in
35:
1163:
640:
1064:
1049:
971:
890:
816:
456:
395:
183:
372:
1452:
1189:
1079:
811:
774:
718:
586:
581:
173:
168:
1201:
620:
1394:
1171:
1108:
368:
348:
301:
267:
188:
62:
55:
230:
1304:
1298:
1225:
1137:
40:
23:
238:
1411:
1195:
862:
1341:
411:
1289:
443:
27:
415:
107:
he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion
81:
under the title "Bulverism". This was reprinted both in
250:
248:
284:
282:
1288:
1276:
1135:
1126:
1035:
1010:
985:
909:
861:
797:
772:
744:
709:
659:
613:
604:
542:
508:
464:
455:
93:
91:in 1970. He explains the origin of this term:
552:Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise
557:Negative conclusion from affirmative premises
427:
382:(essay), Grand Rapids, MI: William B Eerdmans
8:
353:Undeceptions: Essays on Theology and Ethics
103:a man is wrong before you start explaining
1285:
1132:
1007:
610:
461:
434:
420:
412:
65:'s "subject/motive shift", Bulverism is a
400:"Bulverism and the Argument From Reason"
205:
331:
319:
288:
270:(29 March 1941), "Notes on the Way",
254:
7:
14:
1433:
1432:
930:Correlation implies causation
351:(1971), Hooper, Walter (ed.),
85:and the more recent anthology
1:
215:"Three Sophistical Devices"
213:Meynell, Hugo (July 1977).
1487:
1354:I'm entitled to my opinion
304:(June 1944), "Bulverism",
231:10.1177/001258067709532006
1428:
1337:
1210:
1380:Motte-and-bailey fallacy
480:Affirming the consequent
1400:Two wrongs make a right
731:Denying the correlative
355:, London: Geoffrey Bles
16:Type of logical fallacy
1385:Psychologist's fallacy
1322:Argument to moderation
1312:Argument from anecdote
1262:Chronological snobbery
886:Quoting out of context
853:Overwhelming exception
736:Suppressed correlative
636:Quoting out of context
511:quantificational logic
485:Denying the antecedent
127:
67:fallacy of irrelevance
1348:The Four Great Errors
1328:Argumentum ad populum
1317:Argument from silence
1021:Argumentum ad baculum
799:Faulty generalization
490:Argument from fallacy
114:because you are a man
73:Source of the concept
41:attacking the speaker
1366:Invincible ignorance
1172:Reductio ad Stalinum
1158:Reductio ad Hitlerum
1114:Wisdom of repugnance
881:Moving the goalposts
746:Illicit transference
671:Begging the question
592:Undistributed middle
500:Mathematical fallacy
475:Affirming a disjunct
369:Lewis, Clive Staples
349:Lewis, Clive Staples
302:Lewis, Clive Staples
268:Lewis, Clive Staples
200:Notes and references
1464:Deductive reasoning
1459:Relevance fallacies
1099:Parade of horribles
1075:In-group favoritism
901:Syntactic ambiguity
544:Syllogistic fallacy
467:propositional logic
306:The Socratic digest
219:The Downside Review
79:The Socratic Digest
1185:Poisoning the well
1002:Proof by assertion
977:Texas sharpshooter
911:Questionable cause
848:Slothful induction
807:Anecdotal evidence
667:Circular reasoning
562:Exclusive premises
524:Illicit conversion
376:(online full text)
179:Post-structuralism
154:Circular reasoning
32:circular reasoning
1446:
1445:
1424:
1423:
1420:
1419:
1360:Ignoratio elenchi
1272:
1271:
1122:
1121:
1084:Not invented here
789:Converse accident
711:Correlative-based
688:Compound question
631:False attribution
626:False equivalence
600:
599:
373:"God in the Dock"
130:Threat and remedy
43:or the speaker's
1476:
1436:
1435:
1407:Special pleading
1286:
1147:Appeal to motive
1133:
1109:Stirring symbols
1089:Island mentality
1027:Wishful thinking
1008:
724:Perfect solution
701:No true Scotsman
696:Complex question
681:Leading question
660:Question-begging
646:No true Scotsman
611:
534:Quantifier shift
529:Proof by example
462:
436:
429:
422:
413:
407:
390:
389:
387:
377:
356:
335:
329:
323:
317:
311:
309:
298:
292:
286:
277:
275:
274:, vol. XXII
264:
258:
252:
243:
242:
225:(320): 226–230.
210:
149:Appeal to motive
125:
1486:
1485:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1442:
1416:
1390:Rationalization
1333:
1280:
1268:
1206:
1128:Genetic fallacy
1118:
1031:
1006:
981:
905:
896:Sorites paradox
876:False precision
857:
838:Double counting
793:
768:
740:
705:
692:Loaded question
676:Loaded language
655:
596:
538:
504:
451:
440:
396:Reppert, Victor
394:
385:
383:
380:Barking Moonbat
375:
367:
364:
347:
344:
339:
338:
330:
326:
318:
314:
300:
299:
295:
287:
280:
266:
265:
261:
253:
246:
212:
211:
207:
202:
194:Pierre Bourdieu
164:Critical theory
159:Genetic fallacy
145:
132:
126:
120:
88:God in the Dock
75:
36:genetic fallacy
17:
12:
11:
5:
1484:
1483:
1480:
1472:
1471:
1466:
1461:
1451:
1450:
1444:
1443:
1441:
1440:
1429:
1426:
1425:
1422:
1421:
1418:
1417:
1415:
1414:
1409:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1392:
1387:
1382:
1377:
1368:
1363:
1356:
1351:
1344:
1338:
1335:
1334:
1332:
1331:
1324:
1319:
1314:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1294:
1292:
1283:
1274:
1273:
1270:
1269:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1250:
1245:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1229:
1222:
1220:Accomplishment
1211:
1208:
1207:
1205:
1204:
1199:
1192:
1187:
1182:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1149:
1143:
1141:
1130:
1124:
1123:
1120:
1119:
1117:
1116:
1111:
1106:
1101:
1096:
1091:
1086:
1077:
1072:
1067:
1062:
1057:
1052:
1047:
1041:
1039:
1033:
1032:
1030:
1029:
1024:
1016:
1014:
1005:
1004:
995:
989:
987:
983:
982:
980:
979:
974:
972:Slippery slope
969:
964:
959:
958:
957:
947:
946:
945:
938:
928:
927:
926:
915:
913:
907:
906:
904:
903:
898:
893:
891:Slippery slope
888:
883:
878:
873:
867:
865:
859:
858:
856:
855:
850:
845:
840:
835:
826:
825:
824:
819:
817:Cherry picking
809:
803:
801:
795:
794:
792:
791:
786:
780:
778:
770:
769:
767:
766:
761:
756:
750:
748:
742:
741:
739:
738:
733:
728:
727:
726:
715:
713:
707:
706:
704:
703:
698:
685:
684:
683:
673:
663:
661:
657:
656:
654:
653:
648:
643:
638:
633:
628:
623:
617:
615:
608:
602:
601:
598:
597:
595:
594:
589:
584:
579:
574:
569:
564:
559:
554:
548:
546:
540:
539:
537:
536:
531:
526:
521:
515:
513:
506:
505:
503:
502:
497:
492:
487:
482:
477:
471:
469:
459:
453:
452:
441:
439:
438:
431:
424:
416:
410:
409:
406:(blog), Google
404:Dangerous idea
392:
363:
362:External links
360:
359:
358:
343:
340:
337:
336:
334:, p. 226.
324:
322:, p. 223.
312:
293:
278:
259:
257:, p. 225.
244:
204:
203:
201:
198:
197:
196:
191:
186:
184:Deconstruction
181:
176:
171:
166:
161:
156:
151:
144:
141:
131:
128:
118:
99:You must show
74:
71:
54:was coined by
30:that combines
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1482:
1481:
1470:
1467:
1465:
1462:
1460:
1457:
1456:
1454:
1439:
1431:
1430:
1427:
1413:
1410:
1408:
1405:
1401:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1393:
1391:
1388:
1386:
1383:
1381:
1378:
1376:
1372:
1369:
1367:
1364:
1362:
1361:
1357:
1355:
1352:
1350:
1349:
1345:
1343:
1340:
1339:
1336:
1330:
1329:
1325:
1323:
1320:
1318:
1315:
1313:
1310:
1306:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1296:
1295:
1293:
1291:
1287:
1284:
1282:
1275:
1263:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1254:
1251:
1249:
1246:
1244:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1230:
1228:
1227:
1223:
1221:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1213:
1212:
1209:
1203:
1200:
1198:
1197:
1193:
1191:
1188:
1186:
1183:
1181:
1178:
1174:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1150:
1148:
1145:
1144:
1142:
1140:
1139:
1134:
1131:
1129:
1125:
1115:
1112:
1110:
1107:
1105:
1102:
1100:
1097:
1095:
1092:
1090:
1087:
1085:
1081:
1080:Invented here
1078:
1076:
1073:
1071:
1068:
1066:
1063:
1061:
1058:
1056:
1053:
1051:
1048:
1046:
1043:
1042:
1040:
1038:
1034:
1028:
1025:
1023:
1022:
1018:
1017:
1015:
1013:
1009:
1003:
999:
996:
994:
991:
990:
988:
984:
978:
975:
973:
970:
968:
965:
963:
960:
956:
953:
952:
951:
948:
944:
943:
939:
937:
936:
932:
931:
929:
925:
922:
921:
920:
917:
916:
914:
912:
908:
902:
899:
897:
894:
892:
889:
887:
884:
882:
879:
877:
874:
872:
869:
868:
866:
864:
860:
854:
851:
849:
846:
844:
843:False analogy
841:
839:
836:
834:
830:
827:
823:
820:
818:
815:
814:
813:
812:Sampling bias
810:
808:
805:
804:
802:
800:
796:
790:
787:
785:
782:
781:
779:
777:
776:
775:Secundum quid
771:
765:
762:
760:
757:
755:
752:
751:
749:
747:
743:
737:
734:
732:
729:
725:
722:
721:
720:
719:False dilemma
717:
716:
714:
712:
708:
702:
699:
697:
693:
689:
686:
682:
679:
678:
677:
674:
672:
668:
665:
664:
662:
658:
652:
649:
647:
644:
642:
639:
637:
634:
632:
629:
627:
624:
622:
619:
618:
616:
612:
609:
607:
603:
593:
590:
588:
587:Illicit minor
585:
583:
582:Illicit major
580:
578:
575:
573:
570:
568:
565:
563:
560:
558:
555:
553:
550:
549:
547:
545:
541:
535:
532:
530:
527:
525:
522:
520:
517:
516:
514:
512:
507:
501:
498:
496:
493:
491:
488:
486:
483:
481:
478:
476:
473:
472:
470:
468:
463:
460:
458:
454:
449:
445:
437:
432:
430:
425:
423:
418:
417:
414:
405:
401:
397:
393:
381:
374:
370:
366:
365:
361:
354:
350:
346:
345:
341:
333:
328:
325:
321:
316:
313:
307:
303:
297:
294:
291:, p. xv.
290:
285:
283:
279:
273:
272:Time and Tide
269:
263:
260:
256:
251:
249:
245:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
209:
206:
199:
195:
192:
190:
187:
185:
182:
180:
177:
175:
174:Postmodernism
172:
170:
169:Structuralism
167:
165:
162:
160:
157:
155:
152:
150:
147:
146:
142:
140:
136:
129:
124:
121:C. S. Lewis,
117:
115:
110:
106:
102:
97:
92:
90:
89:
84:
80:
72:
70:
68:
64:
59:
57:
53:
48:
46:
42:
37:
33:
29:
25:
22:is a type of
21:
1375:Naturalistic
1358:
1346:
1326:
1297:
1281:of relevance
1224:
1202:Whataboutism
1194:
1179:
1170:
1164:Godwin's law
1156:
1136:
1019:
1012:Consequences
993:Law/Legality
967:Single cause
940:
933:
773:
641:Loki's Wager
621:Equivocation
614:Equivocation
403:
398:(Mar 2006),
386:10 September
384:, retrieved
379:
352:
342:Bibliography
327:
315:
305:
296:
271:
262:
222:
218:
208:
137:
133:
122:
113:
108:
104:
100:
98:
94:
86:
83:Undeceptions
82:
78:
76:
60:
51:
49:
19:
18:
1469:C. S. Lewis
1395:Red herring
1152:Association
833:Conjunction
754:Composition
651:Reification
567:Existential
519:Existential
189:Lacanianism
63:Antony Flew
61:Similar to
56:C. S. Lewis
26:rhetorical
1453:Categories
1371:Moralistic
1305:Sealioning
1299:Ad nauseam
1226:Ipse dixit
1138:Ad hominem
962:Regression
764:Ecological
577:Four terms
495:Masked man
332:Lewis 1971
320:Lewis 1971
308:(2): 16–20
289:Lewis 1971
255:Lewis 1971
24:ad hominem
1412:Straw man
1290:Arguments
1279:fallacies
1253:Tradition
1243:Etymology
1215:Authority
1196:Tu quoque
1180:Bulverism
950:Gambler's
919:Animistic
863:Ambiguity
829:Base rate
572:Necessity
444:fallacies
371:(1994) ,
239:0012-5806
123:Bulverism
52:Bulverism
50:The term
20:Bulverism
1438:Category
1070:Ridicule
1055:Flattery
1045:Children
942:Post hoc
822:McNamara
784:Accident
759:Division
606:Informal
143:See also
119:—
34:and the
1257:Novelty
1232:Poverty
1094:Loyalty
1060:Novelty
1037:Emotion
986:Appeals
955:Inverse
935:Cum hoc
924:Furtive
442:Common
28:fallacy
1342:Cliché
1277:Other
1248:Nature
1236:Wealth
871:Accent
457:Formal
237:
45:motive
1104:Spite
998:Stone
1190:Tone
1065:Pity
1050:Fear
448:list
388:2016
235:ISSN
109:that
101:that
509:In
465:In
227:doi
105:why
1455::
1373:/
1255:/
1234:/
1082:/
1000:/
831:/
694:/
690:/
669:/
402:,
378:,
281:^
247:^
233:.
223:95
221:.
217:.
47:.
450:)
446:(
435:e
428:t
421:v
408:.
391:.
357:.
310:.
276:.
241:.
229::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.