[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-detail-151090-en":3,"doc-seo-151090-105":30,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":92},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",{"doc_id":7,"user_id":8,"nickname":9,"user_avatar":10,"doc_module":4,"category_id":11,"category_name":12,"doc_title":13,"doc_description":14,"doc_content":15,"file_id":16,"file_url":17,"file_type":18,"file_size":19,"view_count":20,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":20,"is_downloadable":20,"audit_status":20,"page_count":21,"language":22,"language_code":23,"site_id":24,"html_lang":23,"table_of_contents":25,"faqs":26,"seo_title":27,"seo_description":14,"update_tm":28,"read_time":29},151090,1374391974585,"Genevieve","https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c",8,"Research & Report","Towards a Taxonomy of Bullshit Illocutionary Acts - A Reply to Gascón and Mukerji and Mannino","The paper proposes a revised definition of Gascón’s argumentative bullshit by adding three words, characterizing it as producing an argument without concern for the strength of the supporting relation between reasons and claim. It then evaluates Mukerji and Mannino’s general account of argumentative bullshit and extends it into a taxonomy of bullshit illocutionary acts. Using Grice’s conversational maxims, the analysis clarifies how this extension aligns with the underlying direction suggested by Gascón.","Towards a Taxonomy of Bullshit Illocutionary Acts: A Reply to Gascón and Mukerji and Mannino  \nGUSTAVO PICAZO  \nDepartment of Philosophy  \nUniversity of Murcia  \nEdif. Luis Vives, Campus de Espinardo, Punto 12, ES–30100 Murcia Spain  \n[picazo@um.es](picazo@um.es)  \nAbstract: I propose redefining Gascón’s (2021) notion of argumentative bullshit by adding three words to its original formulation. Consequently, argumentative bullshit would be defined as the production of an argument without concern for the strength of the supporting relation between the reasons and the claim. I then examine Mukerji and Mannino’s (2022) general account of argumentative bullshit. Using Grice’s (1975) conversational maxims, I show how it can be further extended into a taxonomy of bullshit illocutionary acts—an extension Gascón himself hints at.  \nRésumé: Je propose de redéfinir la notion de « conneries argumentatives » de Gascón (2021) en ajoutant trois mots à sa formulation originale. Ainsi, le « conneries argumentatives » serait défini comme la production d’un argument sans se soucier de la force du lien de soutien entre les raisons et la conclusion. J’examine ensuite la définition générale de « conneries argumentatives » proposée par Mukerji et Mannino (2022) . À l’aidedes maximes conversationnelles de Grice, je montre comment cette définition peut être étendue à une taxonomie des actes illocutoires de « bullshit » .  \nKeywords: argumentation theory, bullshit argument, bullshit assertion, bullshit discourse, conversational maxims, illocutionary acts, linguistic pragmatics, rational argumentation  \n1. Introduction  \nThis paper examines José Ángel Gascón’s “Argumentative bullshit” (Gascón 2021) and Nikil Mukerji and Adriano Mannino’s“Deeper into Argumentative Bullshit” (Mukerji and Mannino 2022), both of which are published in this journal. In Section 2, I  \n© Gustavo Picazo. Informal Logic, Vol. 45, No. 4 (2025), pp. 593–627.  \n594 Gustavo Picazo  \ncritique Gascón’s definition of a bullshit argument, arguing that while it is flawed, it can easily be amended by adding three words. In Section 3, I use Grice’s (1975) conversational maxims to analyse Mukerji and Mannino’s proposal of a general account of argumentative bullshit. In Section 4, I discuss Meibauer’s (2016) and Stokke’s (2018) treatments of bullshit assertions, especially in relation to Grice’s maxims. Finally, in Section 5, I explore how Mukerji and Mannino’s account of argumentative bullshit can be further extended into a taxonomy of bullshit illocutionary acts—an extension Gascón himself hints at.  \n2. Gascón on argumentative bullshit This section proceeds as follows:  \n• §2.1: I present Gascón’s literal definition of a bullshit argument, which I call R1.  \n• §§2.2–2.4: I point to a key weakness in R1—if we adhere to it, most ‘bullshit arguments’ will not qualify as genuine arguments.  \n• §§2.5–2.10: I argue that R1 disrupts the intended analogy with Frankfurt’s concept of a bullshit assertion, on which it is purportedly based.  \n• §§2.11–2.12: I propose an improved definition of a bullshit argument—R2—by adding three words to Gascón’s formulation.  \n• §§2.13–2.18: I analyse Gascón’s examples of argumentative bullshit, showing that they in fact align more closely with R2 than with R1.  \n• §2.19: I introduce a comparative table outlining key constitutive and regulative norms of assertions and arguments.  \n• §§2.20: I use R2 to explain why counterarguing a bullshit argument feels odd while still recognizing it as an argument.  \n© Gustavo Picazo. Informal Logic, Vol. 45, No. 4 (2025), pp. 593–627.  \nTowards a Taxonomy of Bullshit Illocutionary Acts 595  \n• §§2.21–2.22: I briefly discuss the nonalethic motivations behind bullshit arguments, showing that they are not always morally reprehensible.  \n• §§2.23–2.24: I assess Gascón’s comparison of lies, bullshit assertions, bullshit arguments, and bad arguments in light of R2.  \n• §2.25: I briefly examine Gascón’s suggestion to characterize as b","cbCaiqQnal1CEB4c","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiqQnal1CEB4c","pdf",576554,1,35,"English","en",105,"# Introduction\n# Gascón on argumentative bullshit\n## Gascón introduces argumentative bullshit as an extension of Frankfurt\n## Weaknesses of the literal definition and the improved definition\n## Analysis of examples and argumentative norms","[{\"question\":\"How does Picazo redefine argumentative bullshit based on Gascón (2021)?\",\"answer\":\"Picazo redefines it by adding three words, yielding a view where argumentative bullshit consists in producing an argument without concern for how strongly the reasons support the claim.\"},{\"question\":\"What role do Grice’s conversational maxims play in the paper?\",\"answer\":\"Grice’s conversational maxims are used to analyze Mukerji and Mannino’s account, showing how it can be extended toward a taxonomy of bullshit illocutionary acts.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does Picazo argue that the literal definition of argumentative bullshit is problematic?\",\"answer\":\"The paper argues that defining it as producing an argument without any regard for whether support exists conflicts with the conceptual link between arguing, reasons, and supporting relations.\"}]","Towards a Taxonomy of Bullshit Illocutionary Acts - A Reply to Gascón and Mukerji and Mannino | PDF",1787832596,88,{"code":4,"msg":31,"data":32},"ok",{"site_id":24,"language":23,"slug":33,"title":13,"keywords":34,"description":14,"schema_data":35,"social_meta":87,"head_meta":89,"extra_data":91,"updated_unix":28},"towards-a-taxonomy-of-bullshit-illocutionary-acts-a-reply-to-gascon-and-mukerji-and-mannino","",{"@graph":36,"@context":86},[37,54,69],{"@type":38,"itemListElement":39},"BreadcrumbList",[40,44,48,51],{"item":41,"name":42,"@type":43,"position":20},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":45,"name":46,"@type":43,"position":47},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":49,"name":12,"@type":43,"position":50},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":52,"name":13,"@type":43,"position":53},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/towards-a-taxonomy-of-bullshit-illocutionary-acts-a-reply-to-gascon-and-mukerji-and-mannino/151090/",4,{"url":52,"name":13,"@type":55,"author":56,"headline":13,"publisher":58,"fileFormat":61,"inLanguage":23,"description":14,"dateModified":62,"datePublished":63,"encodingFormat":61,"isAccessibleForFree":64,"interactionStatistic":65},"DigitalDocument",{"name":9,"@type":57},"Person",{"url":41,"name":59,"@type":60},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-05","2026-08-27",true,{"@type":66,"interactionType":67,"userInteractionCount":20},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":68},"ViewAction",{"@type":70,"mainEntity":71},"FAQPage",[72,78,82],{"name":73,"@type":74,"acceptedAnswer":75},"How does Picazo redefine argumentative bullshit based on Gascón (2021)?","Question",{"text":76,"@type":77},"Picazo redefines it by adding three words, yielding a view where argumentative bullshit consists in producing an argument without concern for how strongly the reasons support the claim.","Answer",{"name":79,"@type":74,"acceptedAnswer":80},"What role do Grice’s conversational maxims play in the paper?",{"text":81,"@type":77},"Grice’s conversational maxims are used to analyze Mukerji and Mannino’s account, showing how it can be extended toward a taxonomy of bullshit illocutionary acts.",{"name":83,"@type":74,"acceptedAnswer":84},"Why does Picazo argue that the literal definition of argumentative bullshit is problematic?",{"text":85,"@type":77},"The paper argues that defining it as producing an argument without any regard for whether support exists conflicts with the conceptual link between arguing, reasons, and supporting relations.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":52,"og:type":88,"og:title":13,"og:site_name":59,"og:description":14},"article",{"robots":90,"canonical":52},"index,follow",{"doc_id":7,"site_id":24},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":93},[94,98,102,106,111,116,121,124,129,132,136],{"id":20,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":95,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":97},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":47,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":99,"show_sort_weight":100,"slug":101},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":53,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":113,"show_sort_weight":114,"slug":115},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":118,"show_sort_weight":119,"slug":120},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":11,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":12,"show_sort_weight":122,"slug":123},30,"research-report",{"id":125,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":126,"show_sort_weight":127,"slug":128},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":130,"show_sort_weight":127,"slug":131},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":133,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":134,"show_sort_weight":133,"slug":135},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":137,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":138,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":139},19,"General","general"]