Honesty, Truth, Bullshit & Lies

First off- because some of the content in this post was inspired by others, I feel I should give credit where credit is due. I love deep conversations with people, and I’ve been fortunate enough to have spent time with some great minds, and found some great communities over the past few years. Most notably, Brighton Philosophy group and Ipswich Philosophy group, as well as a handful of individuals elsewhere. I could reel off names, but perhaps another time is best.

The subject of lies vs bullshit was one that I might’ve nabbed from a few others- and I thought it fair that I acknowledge that before I write about it.

So: Lies vs Bullshit – what’s the difference and which one is worse?

A lie is a deliberate deception used to give a false impression of the truth of the world. It’s usually used to one’s own advantage, to the detriment of someone else’s ability to navigate the truth.

I would differentiate bullshit from a lie in that it is still fundamentally an untruth- however, it asks the receiver to play along in the untruth – which is somehow more offensive in many ways. It doesn’t really seek to gain the upper hand in anything, there’s no subterfuge- it’s just straight up over-embellishment to the point of lunacy. The point is, you can smell bullshit a mile away.

With a lie- it’s a case of whether you believe it or not. With bullshit, it’s a case of whether you call it out; you know it’s not factual, but the person is telling it as if it is. They’re almost asking you to rebuke it so they can take offence or leverage the fact that- despite it being completely unrealistic, you can’t prove that it’s false. To the common person, this is often far too much effort- a game (Eric Berne style) with no pay-off. Unless you can call it out effectively or prove it’s rubbish. Alternatively, the listener remains quiet and complacent in the lies being spoken- and in their silence they can feel like a passive supporter of the untruth.

Anyway- just thought that was an interesting way of distinguishing the two. Funnily enough- I think the original conversation around this definition of bullshit was had by two individuals trying to disparage my ideas on quantum phenomena, (having no experience in the field themselves). Truth can have fuzzy values at the quantum level- I’ll settle for a superposition of bullshit and insight.

Now: Honesty and Truth…

Truth is a state, honesty is a behaviour. You can tell the truth in a way that obscures the useful extrapolation of consequences. The magical language in Eragon book series works like this- you can only use it to tell the truth, and so the elves learned to speak in half-truths, riddles, and use only parts of the truth to nudge recipients false conclusions. I think that on a fundamental level, objective truth can be both absolute and fuzzy. The computational equivalent is discrete and defined 1s and 0s compared to quantum states of 1-and-0 in certain ratios. Quantum systems that make up our reality can be both super-positional, or defined once they decohere (there is an argument that this happens with respect to a subjective observer, and that the same system of observed-observer is still in a super-positional state to a second observer external to the frame – see “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment). Of course, the nature of subjective truth is that it’s local to the observer, whether that be in quantum decoherence or the conscious experience of events, (if indeed those are different things at all).

That’s a loose overview of truth. Honesty is, I think- being fully forthcoming with all or enough relevant information that is in the recipient’s interest, so that they may effectively navigate the world in a non-deluded and truthful fashion. Of course, it is not your responsibility nor is it a reasonable ask that every minute detail of interest (and potentially not, but maybe of interest) be communicated to all of the people you meet. Still, it’s usually a case of: ‘If I were in their position, would I want to know this- or, would knowing this help me navigate the world more truthfully?’