[c7b]

I understand that this is mainly an attack on another blogger, but I still don't like the tone of the article. I don't see the need for the strong language, and actually, if you try to replace it with something more civil, the cracks in the argument are becoming apparent.

What is BS? Being objectively wrong? How would we know that someone is objectively wrong or right eg in Finance (one of the fields mentioned)? Markets can stay irrational for longer than someone is alive - what does it mean for markets to be irrational from their perspective? Merton and Scholes received the Nobel Prize for their finance theories, yet the hedge fund they ran explicitly based on those theories collapsed spectacularly. Does this conclusively prove that their theory was BS, or were they just unlucky to catch a low probability event with a strategy that 'objectively' had a positive expectation (just playing devil's advocate here)? Let's look at another field OP mentioned where we should be able to say what's objectively true, science. Hendrik Lorentz's theories on how light travels through ether were objectively wrong (for all we know), yet they lead to special relativity. Does this make him a BS artist or not? Would the answer change if Einstein hadn't come along?

It seems that OP's argument would have been far less convincing if he'd bothered to try to be exact about his definitions instead of relying on the gut feeling that we all know what BS means. If the argument seems appealing, then the reason for that might lie more in the mind of the reader (who wouldn't like to rise above supposed BS artists?) than in insights about the world. Which makes me sad to say, because I generally had a high impression of Gelman.

[ksenzee]

No need to rely on a gut feeling: it's in the dictionary. Merriam-Webster defines bullshit as "to talk nonsense to, especially with the intention of deceiving or misleading." So it's not being objectively wrong, it's peddling nonsense. The term has come into popular use even among people who don't swear much, because it's precise and evocative.

[c7b]

Ok, I'll take that. Still not sure about the argument under that definition, though. There are disciplines where 'talking nonsense with the intention to deceive' would objectively be a smart strategy, eg Poker. However, Poker should fall under the 'no-BS' fields according to OP (he lists sports, and expressly mentions chess there; any sort of trash-talking in any sport would also fall under that definition, and trash-talking athletes can still be successful - it's quite common in martial arts eg). My guess is that the OP would argue that Poker or martial arts still are 'no-BS' fields, we just need a better definition of BS.

But that just shows that the argument doesn't work with this definition, and the onus is still on the OP of providing a definition that works for his argument (or we have to conclude that his argument doesn't work).