'Bull', rational discourse and democracy.

Bull, bollock or bullshit are regarded as expletives. Although we are often, unknowingly, indulging in it, in the present context it is dealt with in a purely ontological context: in the sense that philosophy and cognitive psychology has attempted to explain it as a distinct, interactive phenomenon involving description of reality in specific ways to achieve certain specific goals, by the process of influencing behaviour or conduct of others. Its pursuit versus rational, evidence based discourse and implications for democracy are self-explanatory, since it can distort correct decision-making for common good.

The activity of bullshitting may be carried out by design. More commonly it is pursued unconsciously with only the desired goal being clearly perceptible.

Such objectives are often aimed at exercise of influence or power to achieve clearly defined aims, often unrelated to the social good. The activity is designed to influence and shape individual or social perceptions, thought and conduct in ways that assist in easy achievement of objectives, often without or despite regard to principles of truth, objectivity, democracy and social good.

The bullshitter is more dangerous than a liar: a liar tells untruth; the bullshitter aims to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true - it may be! The boundary between lies and truth are befuddled. A bullshitter pretends to be truthful while showing a hidden disdain for truth. A bullshitter is more dangerous than a liar.

In the English language, bullshitting, although an immodest term, found currency during the two wars in military barracks or messes with reference to outlandish nonsense or wild, unreasonable assertions. They were referred to as 'crap' or 'bull' explaining the bizarre and unbelievable.

From the military traditions it seeped into the cerebral and semantic frame of post-independent milieu, mostly attributing malfeasance and incompetence to those intended to be kept out of the power equation, which mainly meant civilian leaders. The latter were hamstrung from their own problems of feudal incipience and post independent travails of weak political parties juxtaposed against an inordinately strong military-bureaucratic-feudal state structure.

The unacceptable uncivil word, bullshit, however, became, over time, norm-free, particularly with academic attempts at understanding the psychology and philosophical moorings of why people...