Calling Bullshit: The Art of Skepticism in a Data-Driven World

by Carl T. Bergstrom

Perhaps we aren’t supposed to take this equation-building approach literally. Why can’t we use these equations as a metaphor or a mode of expression? Mathematical equations are useful precisely for their precision of expression—but all of these examples fail to deliver this precision. You make a false promise when you suggest that happiness is an arithmetic sum of three things, if all you mean is that it increases with each of them. It is like promising chia-seed-and-spelt waffles sweetened with wildflower honey; topped with blackberry compote, a lingonberry reduction, and house-whipped sweet cream—but delivering an Eggo with artificial maple syrup. You can claim your description wasn’t meant to be taken literally, but why not say what you mean in the first place? We do not know why so many writers are prone to invent equations that layer a veneer of mathiness atop their qualitative arguments. Obviously it impresses some of the people, some of the time, but why aren’t these authors embarrassed to be caught out by the rest of us? Perhaps without a clear understanding of everything a mathematical equation entails, they fail to see the scale at which their faux equations underdeliver.