- Elevate perceptions of expertise and knowledge.

- Secure deference from outsiders, minimize substantive criticism.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40520889)

Troll’s Truisms are used to insinuate an exciting falsehood, which is a desired doctrine,

yet permit retreat to the trivial truth when pressed by an opponent. In so doing they

exhibit a property which makes them the simplest possible case of what I shall call a

Motte and Bailey Doctrine(since a doctrine can single belief or an entire body of beliefs).

A Motte and Bailey castle is a medieval system of defence in which a stone tower on a

mound (the Motte) is surrounded by an area of land (the Bailey) which in turn is

encompassed by some sort of a barrier such as a ditch. Being dark and dank, the Motte is

not a habitation of choice. The only reason for its existence is the desirability of the

Bailey, which the combination of the Motte and ditch makes relatively easy to retain

despite attack by marauders. When only lightly pressed, the ditch makes small numbers of

attackers easy to defeat as they struggle across it: when heavily pressed the ditch is not

defensible and so neither is the Bailey. Rather one retreats to the insalubrious but

defensible, perhaps impregnable, Motte. Eventually the marauders give up, when one is

well placed to reoccupy desirable land.

For my purposes the desirable but only lightly defensible territory of the Motte and

Bailey castle, that is to say, the Bailey, represents a philosophical doctrine or position

with similar properties: desirable to its proponent but only lightly defensible. The Motte is

the defensible but undesired position to which one retreats when hard pressed. I think it is

evident that Troll’s Truisms have the Motte and Bailey property, since the exciting

falsehoods constitute the desired but indefensible region within the ditch whilst the trivial

truth constitutes the defensible but dank Motte to which one may retreat when pressed.

An entire doctrine or theory may be a Motte and Bailey Doctrine just by virtue of

having a central core of defensible but not terribly interesting or original doctrines

surrounded by a region of exciting but only lightly defensible doctrines. Just as the

medieval Motte was often constructed by the stonemasons art from stone in the

4

surrounding land, the Motte of dull but defensible doctrines is often constructed by the

use of the sophists art from the desired but indefensible doctrines lying within the ditch.

Diagnosis of a philosophical doctrine as being a Motte and Bailey Doctrine is

invariably fatal. Once made it is relatively obvious to those familiar with the doctrine that

the doctrine’s survival required a systematic vacillation between exploiting the desired

territory and retreating to the Motte when pressed.

The dialectic between many refutations of specific postmodernist doctrines and the

postmodernist defences correspond exactly to the dynamics of Motte and Bailey

Doctrines. When pressed with refutation the postmodernists retreat to their Mottes, only

to venture out and repossess the desired territory when the refutation is not in immediate

evidence. For these reasons, I think the proper diagnosis of postmodernism is precisely

that it is a Motte and Bailey Doctrine. I do not have time to defend that rather large claim

in detail here. Rather, we are going to look at some examples. I hope that for those

familiar with postmodernism as a whole, seeing the mechanism laid bare in a few cases

will suffice to make evident the larger truth.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40520895)

br00tal takedown of foucault.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40521097)

the comedy of it is that lots of academicese isn't even that impenetrable - what makes it seem that way is that the ideas behind it are so convoluted and inherently confused, because their makers aren't so sharp.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40521288)

They’re the greatest scholars of our era

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40521799)

Chomsky dismantles it in two minutes.

There is another clip that I can't find right now where Chomsky talks about talking to physicists. The physicists start explaining some principle in basic terms and Chomsky can repeat it back and follow along and the physicist starts adding complexity and Chomsky can follow along and accurately repeat it back but at some point can't follow anymore. But with humanities professors and "theory" types you cannot understand what they are saying at all and if you repeat it back to them you are always told, "no, you misunderstand me." Chomsky says that you have to decide if humanity types are actually smarter than physicists and deal with a subject matter far more complex than physics or whether the humanities types are just full of obscurantist bullshit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4573226&forum_id=2#40521961)