You clearly need to read my book (https://www.amazon.com/How-Get-Your-Lies-Back/dp/B07R448S2L/) and my papers.
These other guys (Sun and Bowyer) always assume intention. My taxonomy of lies is much better. In TruthCourt.net two of the eight verdict questions (25%) regard intention and one motive. I do not think the "On Bullshit" is any good from the perspective of Mendaciology (the study or science of lies). It contributes almost nothing. (It's just word salad by someone who is not a scholar). Sadly a lot of people read it because it is "so cool." Which it is not.
It lacks any deep understanding of Mendaciology.
Bowyer's book is truly different and is a scholarly work of the first order. Sun's book is not as good but is itself worth reading. Here is a first short class in Mendaciology.
https://medium.com/liecatcher/mendaciology-4e21bd47d8ba
I am very unpolitical but fiat lying is very very bad for humankind. The reason is that it is very very dangerous to human society. There is considerable science, real science, behind this. It is fundamental to how neurons compute what they compute and how we know what we know, and to the limits of an individual's knowledge or to any human or animal knowledge. Here is the scientific (observational) basis:
Here is my systematic taxonomy. Even though I did not know Bowyer's book at the time (2019), it encompasses Bowyer's taxonomy, and more, in terms of what people call "lies." It is the basis for the eight verdict questions that can dissect any truth as a lie or any lie as a truth.
https://medium.com/liecatcher/on-a-taxonomy-of-lies-3941d575d03
Note, for any sentence (or predication) each question can more than one answer. For example, I can lie with multiple intentions and multiple motivations (with perfect consistency). The human brain is computing these things. In truthcourt.net, in order to make it go quickly for each free trial, one juror or plaintiff can only describe one coherent instantaneous taxonomic subsystem. The human brain can, and always does, compute many simultaneously (or, rather, very very fast). You can observe this scientifically if you respect the thousands of years of structural linguistics first deeply recognized by de Saussure (~1900) later deeply studied by Chomsky (~1960) and first deeply described by Descartes (~1600) and manifest superbly in others like Wittgenstein (~1940). With modern science (e.g., fMRI studies) we can observe the computation and it gives us the definite answer about what the brain does for a living (or how it computes on potential information for your kinetic survival):
https://medium.com/liecatcher/how-your-brain-computes-41ebe7428ff9
And, yes, everybody is always lying to someone. (Also always telling the truth to someone else). Mostly it is because of how human brains compute.
With honest conversation, or, as Descartes saw, enforced moderated dialogue (the basis for modern scholarship and science and the rules of evidence in Law, and modern Democratic Gov't -- US Constitution), the damage can be limited. Descartes (in his "Method") is justifiably recognized as the Father of the Age of Reason (Durant, "The Age of Reason" see the Fiat Lie paper above).
"On Bullshit" is just anecdotal bullshit with no fundamental understanding of human brains. Bullshit is not cool.
NEVER EVER VOTE FOR A DIVISIVE LIAR, YOU WILL BE SORRY:
https://medium.com/liecatcher/quick-test-for-psychopaths-4839ccbcf74d
Divisive truth, as with my concern with "On Bullshit" being not a very useful or illuminating book is OK and constructive, if it is observably true and open to human natural language dialogue which anybody can force for free with truthcourt.net.
