RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Bulverism

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Bulverism | Result: No consensus[edit]

Bulverism (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)


  1. The specific combination of ad hominem and appeal to motive expressed by "Bulverism" is not only quite rare, but would be called out for one of the component fallacies long before anyone looks this word up. Furthermore, the examples given do not even fit the description, being composed of circular arguments and ad hominems instead. I provided a more detailed explanantion on the article's talk page, and ZooGuard's comment is also helpful. I see no purpose for this page, not even as a curiosity. Aeonian (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    To FCP; maybe I'm being pedantic, but the definition seems too specific to be of any use. In your examples, for instance, couldn't those be more correctly described as simple ad hominems? I see them often as well, but only in the context of trying to dismiss the person criticizing their idea. "Bulverism" is defined as using the ad hominem as an argument in and of itself, which I never see, not even in the examples on the page. And even in a case that fits the description, circular reasoning, ad hominem, and appeal to motive are all just as accurate, and much more well known. Again, I think this is just way too specific and obscure to be considered a fallacy in and of itself. See the talk page for more on this.Aeonian (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    That's why I agree with DG that Bulverism should instead be merged into ad hom. It seems to me that it's simply an elaborate, extreme and not very prevalent version of the far more common ad hom. I agree that Bulverism is far too specific to merit an article of its own. The problem with the examples of the page is that they conform to the brief format used in other RW articles, whereas Bulverisms don't, by definition, consist of such terse statements, but of an ad hom + claims about why the antagonist holds these beliefs, a style which is hard to squeeze down into one liners without the examples becoming "simple" ad homs. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. It's one of the articles that was on my infinitely long list of "crap articles to clean up". If it remains in the current state, it's better for the article not to exist. I'm willing to switch my vote if someone rewrites the article and brings it up to something resembling an informative article. A hint: try the "what C.S. Lewis actually wrote" angle, not the "logical fallacy subtype #5289, I'm so smart to know them all" angle.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  4. Typhoon (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


  1. It's a really interesting idea because I see it so often. Instead of attacking other peoples ideas, I see people attack the source of their ideas -- oh, you're just a brainwashed kid/liberal/etc. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 03:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    What you describe a generic argument ad hominem/well-poisoning, not exactly what Lewis meant by "Bulverism".--ZooGuard (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. I also see it often, and also in other shapes (it could perhaps be described by an overarching principle, or better sourced). There is actually a ton more with first and second order confusions. ~ Aneris 23:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. See it often and unfortunately have drempt of using it myself as well. It certainly is missions and hits some good points. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  4. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


  • To argumentum ad hominem - David Gerard (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
    ^What DG said. This seems like a specific (sub)variant of ad hom, "going all in", so to speak, so that the ad hom and elaboration on it and the purported personal reasons behind the antagonist's opinions become the entire argument. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • To straw man. (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • This article is basically restating the contents of straw man and ad hominem. Divide it up into those two articles (and/or relevant others), otherwise delete. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge! Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)