If fact checkers are to be trusted even a little, one rare certainty of this last election is that Donald Trump is a fountain of falsehoods.Politifact, for example, found that Trump issued more pants-on-fire falsehoods than all other primary and general candidatescombined(see point 4.).

Trump’s falsehoods range from egregious exaggeration to wholesale invention.

For an example of the former (exaggeration), take what hesaidto theNew York TimesEditorial Board about insurance premiums under the Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare): “People are paying a 100 percent increase and they’re not even getting anything, the deductibles are so high, you have deductibles $16,000.” But as theTimespoints out, the usual increase is 20 to 40 percent (only 100 percent in extremely rare cases), while themaximumout-of-pocket cost is $14,300. So Trump is talking about something more extreme than the maximum case as if it were representative.

For an example of the latter (invention), Trump said at a rally in Michigan that he had been “honored” five years ago as “Man of the Year in Michigan.” Unfortunately, theredoesn’t seem to beany such award, and any award that comes close to it wasn’t won by Trump—ever.

从这些例子和其他例子中，你可能会得出结论，特朗普是一个根深蒂固的骗子，他的谎言掩盖了真相，在容易受骗的选民中赢得了好感。

But here’s another hypothesis: Trump is bullshitting.

What, you ask, distinguishes lying and bullshit?

Harry Frankfurt’s classic essay,On Bullshit, draws the distinction like this.Lyingis intentionally saying something that is known to be false. Butbullshittingis saying something withoutregard to whetherit is true or false. The bullshitter just doesn’t care about whether his utterance is true. Furthermore, Frankfurt writes, “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction.”

一些扯淡的简单例子，给你这些要点的感觉，可以在广告中找到。The ad slogan fromPearl, one of the world’s biggest drum companies, is “Pearl, the best reason to play drums.” Or take the classic Burger King slogan: “按你的方式去做。” In point of fact, Pearl isnot打鼓的最佳理由;爱的节奏是一个更好的理由。And in point of fact, you never really got ityour汉堡王的方式;你只能从众多的预制组件中选择一种，几乎没有多余的力量来装泡菜。那么珍珠和汉堡王的营销人员是在撒谎吗?No, because it’s quite unlikely that they had anyconcern—let alone knowledge—about whether their statements were true…they justsoundedgood, and they couldsell.

So when we ask whether Trump is lying or bullshitting, we have to focus on two things. First, does he evenknowwhether what he is saying is true? Second, does hecarewhether what he’s saying is true? If the answer to either or both of these questions is “no,” then we have bullshit, not lying. (Technical point: note that we can see a distinction here within the category of bullshit. Some bullshit consists of sentences that are clear enough to be true or false, like Trump’s claim about the award in Michigan. But other bullshit is so opaque that it can’t be counted true or false either way, which Pennycook and colleaguescall“pseudo-profound” bullshit.)

No doubt, sometimes Trump lies and sometimes he bullshits. And it would take more space than I have to review enough evidence to establish rigorously which way the balance tilts. But my firm impressions are (1) that he often justdoesn’t knowwhether what he’s saying is true (consider hisout-of-dateassertions about Chinese currency manipulation, for example) and (2) that he oftendoesn’t care. Rather, he’s mainly focused on saying whatever fits the narrative that appeals to theless educatedconstituency who voted for him, and that narrative includes demonizing China.

实际上，特朗普正在做的正是汉堡王(Burger King)和珀尔(Pearl)所做的:推动一种叙事，让自己的品牌获得更多影响力。换句话说，扯淡。

Aside from psychological interest, does it matter whether Trump is lying or bullshitting? Is one act more immoral than the other?

我不知道这个道德问题的答案，尽管我怀疑，从长远来看，撒谎和扯淡同样糟糕。从某种意义上说，对谎言和扯淡的明显反应是一样的:你应该用经过充分研究的明确信息陈述来对抗它们，尽可能努力地说出简单的事实。

But beyond that, I think how we respond to the liar and the bullshitter could differ in important ways. I think calling attention to the characteristicignorance这是一件很重要的事情，它可能在某种程度上是有效的，而对撒谎的指责往往是无效的。对撒谎的指责往往让人难以接受，只是因为在我们的文化中，撒谎被视为更大的禁忌。因此，我们可能更容易认定某人只是对他所说的主题一无所知(因此是胡扯);a few factual touch points can make the bullshitter’s ignorance relatively obvious (as in the case of Trump’s ignorance over Chinese currency manipulation, mentioned above, or in the case of his utter ignorance of any evidence that would support hiswild claimsabout illegal voting).

And finally, if our goal is ultimately a more truthful public discourse, it’s incumbent on us to label acts with correct terms, which means calling lies lies and bullshit bullshit: Trump most likely lies often enough, but if I’m right, the majority of his falsehoods are just bullshit.