The Bull Shit Detection Rules…

Every now and then I like to read ‘other’ stuff to get away from the physio stuff, and recently I have been reading a book called “The Demon Haunted World”. Now this isn’t actually a fantasy novel about dragons and warlocks, but a best seller by Carl Sagan about critical thinking and the scientific method, and why we all need to develop our skills in both more.

From some of the reading I have done on Carl Sagan it appears he was an extremely interesting, intelligent and charismatic individual. Not only a brilliant scientist, but also a great philosopher, sociologist, psychologist, critical thinker, poet, sage, writer and orator with a fantastic way with words. His ‘pale blue dot’ being one of his most famous works, and is well worth a few minutes of your time to put you and your place in the world into some serious perspective. Basically you are all insignificant, listen to it here.

In ‘The Demon Haunted World’ Sagan describes some methods to help us distinguish between ideas that are considered valid and scientific, and ideas that are not, ideas that are pseudoscience or bull shit which a lot can found in physio. In a chapter called ‘The fine art of baloney detection’ he discusses how we are all susceptible to many types of deception, from sales and marketing, to religious beliefs, and of course false scientific claims. Sagan also reminds us that falling for these things doesn’t make us stupid or bad people, just ill informed. He then goes on to state how we need to equip ourselves from being fooled time and again.

To do this Sagan suggests we follow nine key rules to detect baloney, what I rather less politley call bull shit, and after some recent discussions I have had on trigger points, dry needling, manual therapy, manipulations, neon coloured stretchy tape, corrective exercises, functional motor control etc etc, I thought I would share Sagan’s rules and hopefully help us all be a little better at spotting the bull shit often promoted as science in this physio profession of ours…

So here goes, the bull shit detection rules…

  1. Wherever possible there must be INDEPENDANT confirmation of the “facts.”
  2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of ALL points of view.
  3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. In science there are NO authorities; at most, there are experts.
  4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of ALL the different ways in which it could be explained. Think of tests which you might systematically DISPROVE each of the alternatives. What survives in this Darwinian selection among the “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
  5. Try not to get overly ATTACHED to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with ALL the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for  REJECTING it. If you don’t, others will.
  6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to MANY explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
  7. If there is a chain of argument EVERY link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
  8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the SIMPLER.
  9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, FALSIFIED. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

So there you go, some simple guidelines to help you work out how great that ‘thing’ really is in helping people with pain or dysfunction, or perhaps help you when you are arguing the toss about how tape imcreases blood flow, or fascia is released with a certain technique, or a needle reduces a muscle knot, please remember these rules.

Unfortunately for most claiming this stuff they won’t hold up to scrutiny of these rules. In fact many are not able to go past rule No 1. And remember when you do question stuff and they turn on you for being too critical, too skeptical, or too negative, first remember to thank them for the compliment, as there is NO such thing as being too critical or too skeptical, then tell them to fuck off! 

As always thanks for reading



4 thoughts on “The Bull Shit Detection Rules…

  1. Hi Adam,

    Great post as per usual. I love reading and/or listening to anything by Carl Sagan. In my opinion one of the great minds, and well ahead of his time. As many of the great minds are.

    I used a Carl Sagan quote in a recent “Professional Issue” paper that I wrote as part of some study I was doing:

    “When Kepler found his long-cherished belief did not agree with the most precise observation, he accepted the uncomfortable fact. He preferred the hard truth to his dearest illusions; that is the heart of science.”

    It would be nice if of all our profession (and science generally) would adopt this approach to practice and research. Pleasingly some already do, but many don’t……as we can regularly see in the comments section on this blog of yours! 🙂

    Thanks again.


    • Thanks for your comments Mark, and yes cognitive dissonance is an unpleasent feeling for many. I know I have encountered it many times and am sure I will encounter it again!

      As you highlight questioning is at the heart of both science and philosophy, which I find myself becoming more and more engrossed in, which I never thought possible, especially philosophy.

      Many wont and don’t like it and resistance will be strong, but as both a nerd and a geek, I will use a quote from Star Trek…

      Resistance is futile!!

  2. I would add an additional rule: Claims made by people who benefit directly in tangible ways from those claims being believed to be true should be subject to extra scrutiny. This is why we require statements of financial interest by authors in published scientific papers.

  3. Have just started following you. I recently read your dinosaur paper. After starting to feel a little disillusioned with my profession it’s nice to find out that there are plenty of other people asking the same questions and challenging the accepted.

Comments are closed.