"Examsmanship and the Liberal Arts: A Study in Educational Epistemology"
by William G. Perry
Written in 1963, Perry recounts an event from the 1940s. This essay describes a Harvard student "Metzger" who....
The professor, not catching-on that Metzger was not a student enrolled in the class, reviewed his paper and graded it with an A-...... about a book that Metzger never read.
Perry analyzes Metzger's approach, which was to use the few clues available to him about the book (title, author's sir name, and the subject of the class/course) and write the exam essay with those hints alone.
The test was in parts; objective questions, and an essay.
On the questions, he did not score so high, but on the essay section...he did.
In present-day terms, he bullshitted his way through the exam.
Students with actual facts and who read the book under examination, received lesser grades.
In Perry's terms from 1963, he describes two concepts of the way we learn, and how we show it...
To me, the point of Perry's essay reveals that both cowing and bulling are necessary (when combined) to understand what's before you.
Contexts and frames of reference are needed to support "pure data".
Even though Perry's essay is in regards to academia in the Liberal Arts, the internet has become a place of voluntary "homeschooling" and information swapping between individuals. People's "academia" methods often are displayed as they set-up blogs, post in forums, and twitter away.
In my opinion regarding conspiracies, I do see a lot of "bulling" where data gets pushed to the wayside in favor of creating a story based around conjecture.
I also see "cowing", where data "facts" are held in high regard but are completely irrelevant.
There is the "convenience factor" when supporting a conspiracy theory, using cow and bull in their separate extremes....
"Cow" when postulating a single fact or circumstance so that no one can argue that it is false (even though it is not relevant).
"Bull" when there are no facts available....in order to suggest that there are -- that the context, similarities, or motives... are enough to prove something "as fact".
When the two extremes rarely meet, is when nothing can be understood or become meaningful.
(I'll use the chemtrail theory, but cowing and bulling can be found in nearly all unproven conspiracies)
(a cow) "Fact: there are patents describing the spraying of chemicals"
(a bull) "The gov't is secretive, and would never reveal how they spray the chemicals"
(a cow) "In the past, the gov't has sprayed chemicals on populations...true, or not true?"
(a bull) "If they did it in the past, they must be doing it now"
(a cow) "Strontium causes cancer"
(a bull) "Strontium often shows up in water and soil tests along with other harmful chemicals that just shouldn't be there. Ever heard of Agenda 21 ?"
Recently, a chemtrail believer on this forum cleverly (and unknowingly) used both in the same question...
(the cow) It's not right to get sprayed without consent. (everybody would agree, it's not "right") It becomes a moralistic "fact", as well as illegal.
(the bull) He is suggesting it's happening now, without consent, and people don't know about it.
We might see supporters of an unproven conspiracy state facts that are quite wrong according to science and physics. We could say, "that's not cowing, because it's not accurate data". But to them, it is actual data and correct.....they believe it to be true and factual. If anything, this is a more-pure cow, because they have not undertaken to discover the relevancies and nature of their factual beliefs.
Perry notes this in the essay when he uses the analogy...the fact taught in elementary school, "Columbus discovered America in 1492".
That learned phrase has no meaning unless the contexts and frames-of-reference are visited as well.
Last edited by a moderator: