expressions - phrase request-Talking in completely irrelevant terms to cover up one's lack of knowledge


Imagine the following scenario:


Charlie walks into a chess club, where Alice and Bob are playing a casual chess game.


Alice: Hi Charlie, do you think I should move the rook or the bishop?


Charlie: According to the Heideggerian phenomenology, chess is a process of Seinsvergessenheit which involves an individual's Existenzialien. (Blah Blah Blah) therefore there is no such a thing as 'should' and the concept of 'move' is also undefined. Also, there is no difference between a rook and a bishop.


We will suppose here that Charlie does NOT know the strategies of chess game (or any philosophy at all) and is talking in terms of philosophy (which I, personally, I admit, am not acquainted with but nonetheless genuinely respect) only to cover up his lack of knowledge. (The Heidegger stuff is just some random nonsense I put up as an example of what might be involved in this tirade.)


What is a word that can be used to describe Charlie's action in this scenario?


Thank you for your consideration.



Answer



I'd say his remarks are obfuscatory; he's engaging in deliberate obfuscation.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

verbs - "Baby is creeping" vs. "baby is crawling" in AmE

commas - Does this sentence have too many subjunctives?

time - English notation for hour, minutes and seconds

grammatical number - Use of lone apostrophe for plural?

etymology - Origin of "s--t eating grin"

etymology - Where does the phrase "doctored" originate?

word choice - Which is the correct spelling: “fairy” or “faerie”?