“Buried In Bullshit” by Tom Farsides And Paul Sparks: Summary and Critique

🔍 1. Conceptual Framing: Liars, Bullshitters, and Scholars

• Key Framework: Borrowing from philosopher Harry Frankfurt, the authors distinguish between liars, bullshitters, and scholars.
  • Liars: Know the truth but deliberately distort it.
  • Bullshitters: Are indifferent to the truth and prioritize “other things that are potentially in conflict with it” (Frankfurt, 2005).
  • Scholars: Genuinely aim to pursue and prioritize truth.
• ➤ “All three characters may communicate truth or falsehood… the distinction is about intentions and endeavours, not outcomes.”
  👉 This framing is crucial: even well-meaning scholars can accidentally produce bullshit if they lack competence or integrity.

---

💣 2. The Bullshit Crisis in Psychology

• The authors argue that psychology is “liberally sprayed with bullshit,” often more troubling than fraud.
• Key Problems Identified:
  • 🚨 Improbable statistical results: “Almost all published studies report statistically significant effects” — despite inadequate sample sizes (Cohen, 1962; Bakker et al., 2012).
  • 🔄 Failed replications: Reproductions of studies routinely fail (Open Science Collaboration, 2015).
  • ✂️ Selective reporting: Authors often omit negative results.
    ➤ “The former mentioned 7 experiments… the latter disclosed 11 more… and only 2 were significant” (Inzlicht, 2015).

---

📉 3. Systemic Causes of Bullshit

• 📌 Lack of expertise: Many researchers “do not have the methodological or statistical expertise necessary” (Colquhoun, 2014).
• 🧏 Blind trust: Researchers accept findings “they would almost certainly not believe if they critiqued them more thoroughly” (Fricker, 2002).
• 🛠️ p-hacking: Flexibility in data analysis allows almost anything to be made to appear significant (Simmons et al., 2011).
  ➤ “Listening to ‘When I’m 64’ made people nearly 1.5 years younger!”
• 🗞️ Publication bias: Prestigious journals reward novelty, not replication (Peplow, 2014).
• 🧩 Poor peer review: Resubmitted accepted articles were mostly rejected due to “serious methodological flaws” (Peters & Ceci, 1982).
• 🔒 Lack of openness: Authors restrict access to their data, hampering verification (Coyne, 2015).
• 💰 Misaligned incentives: Researchers are rewarded for “publications, grants, promotion… rather than truth” (Carter, 2015).
• 🔁 Persistence of myths: Disproven ideas continue to influence psychology (Tatsioni et al., 2007; Lewandowsky et al., 2012).

---

⚖️ 4. Recommendations for Reform

• 📚 Don’t give up: Despite Meehl’s (1990) claim that psychology is “well-nigh uninterpretable,” the authors argue that valuable reform is possible.
• ✅ Key Proposals:
  • 🧠 Prioritize truth over prestige: “May we have the will to pursue [truth] over institutional benefits.”
  • 🔎 Honesty and humility: Acknowledge errors and ignorance openly.
    ➤ “Denying flaws helps no one.”
  • 🌐 Broaden evidence use: Empirical rigor doesn’t only come from experiments. Observation and ordinary-language clarity matter (Rozin, 2001; Billig, 2013).
  • 🧭 Nurture nuance: Don’t treat one-off effects as universal truths.
    ➤ “Experiments usually only show something can occur, not that it must.”
  • 🩺 Triage attention: Focus research on important questions, not only easy-to-study ones.
    ➤ “Better an approximate answer to the right question than an exact answer to the wrong one” (Tukey, 1962).

---

🧠 5. A Call to Intellectual Integrity

• The final tone is passionate and urgent:

“We’re fed up with all the bullshit.”

• Farsides and Sparks affirm the value of psychology but call for a radical reformation of research culture, grounded in intellectual humility, critical scrutiny, and ethical scholarship.

🧠 1. Rhetoric and the Aesthetics of Academic Language

• Bullshit as a Literary Performance:
  The paper aligns with literary theory by treating academic writing itself as a rhetorical act, subject to performance, persuasion, and aesthetic manipulation.

“Many published studies have selectively included or omitted evidence to support claims…”
➤ Echoes Billig’s (2013) criticism of academic writing: language obscures rather than clarifies.

• Relevance to Literary Criticism:
  This contributes to post-structuralist concerns with how meaning is constructed and manipulated through form, tone, and genre.

---

📚 2. Epistemology and Narrative Truth Construction

• Academic Knowledge as Storytelling:
  The article questions whether psychology tells the truth or simply constructs persuasive narratives.

“Can we claim hand-on-heart to confidently know anything… among all the bullshit and lies?”

• Connection to Narrative Theory:
  Resonates with Lyotard’s (1984) Postmodern Condition, where grand scientific narratives lose legitimacy and knowledge becomes commodified.

---

🧩 3. Deconstruction of Scientific Authority

• Deconstructing the Scholar:
  By contrasting liars, bullshitters, and scholars, the paper deconstructs the notion of the expert and reframes scholarly identity as ethically and rhetorically constructed.

“Expertise should be in service of scholarship, not prioritised above it.”

• Link to Derrida’s Deconstruction:
  Authority in psychological science is shown to be unstable, performative, and ideologically situated — a central concern in literary theory.

---

🔍 4. The Ethics of Representation

• Bullshit as Ethical Failure:
  The article reveals that scientific writing often violates ethical standards of representation, much like propaganda or bad fiction.

“We’re fed up with all the bullshit.”

• Contribution to Literary Ethics:
  Reinforces the idea that language is never neutral — a key tenet in ethical literary criticism (e.g., Wayne Booth, Martha Nussbaum).

---

🔁 5. Interrogating the Myth of Objectivity

• Objectivity as Mythical Construct:
  Farsides and Sparks expose how psychology mimics objectivity while being structurally biased.

“Given the multiple serious, widespread, and enduring problems… can we claim… to confidently know anything?”

• Link to Critical Theory:
  Parallels Adorno and Horkheimer’s critique of Enlightenment rationality: science as myth-making under capitalism and bureaucracy.

---

💬 6. Language, Power, and Institutional Discourse

• Academic Bullshit as Institutional Power Language:
  The article critiques how institutional pressures shape what is said and how.

“Perverted reward structures… downgrade the importance of truth to maximise publications…”

• Ties to Foucault:
  Aligns with Foucauldian discourse theory, where power and knowledge are co-produced in institutional settings.

---

🧱 7. Genre Critique: The Scientific Article as a Literary Form

• Scientific Reports as Fictional Constructions:
  The paper suggests that many psychological publications resemble carefully crafted fictions, tailored for impact rather than truth.
  ➤ e.g., “Literally infeasible frequencies of statistically significant effects”
• Contributes to Genre Theory:
  Questions the genre of scientific writing as one that can be manipulated, subverted, or performed dishonestly.

---

🧪 8. Metacriticism: Critiquing the Act of Critique

• Reflexive Literary-Theoretical Positioning:
  The authors interrogate their own participation in the academic system.

“We are interested to hear the views of others… We’re fed up with all the bullshit.”

• Contributes to Literary Metacriticism:
  Suggests that critique must also critique itself, echoing postmodern literary self-awareness.

⚖️ 1. Overgeneralization of Psychological Science

• Critique: The authors risk painting the entire field of psychology with a broad brush, implying that most or all published work is untrustworthy or compromised.
• ➤ This sweeping tone may discourage nuanced assessment or overlook areas of rigorous, reproducible work.
• “It has been suggested that much or possibly most of what we hold to be true in psychology is probably wrong.”
  — This line, while provocative, may border on alarmism.

---

🧪 2. Lack of Empirical Basis for Their Own Claims

• Critique: Ironically, the article criticizes poor empirical standards yet makes broad assertions without providing robust quantitative data.
• ➤ The claims rely heavily on anecdotes, lists of retractions, and cited critiques without systematic meta-analysis.
• The article quotes many high-profile failures but does not statistically demonstrate the proportion of ‘bullshit’ in psychology.

---

🧠 3. Idealistic View of “Scholarship”

• Critique: The authors promote a romanticized and binary view of “truth-seeking scholars” vs. “bullshitters,” ignoring the gray areas of scientific practice.
• ➤ Real-world science often involves trade-offs, ambiguity, and uncertainty, not always clean truth vs. falsehood divisions.
• Their “cast list” of liars, bullshitters, and scholars may oversimplify human motivation and institutional complexity.

---

🪓 4. Risk of Undermining Public Trust in Science

• Critique: While the article seeks reform, it may inadvertently reinforce anti-scientific or populist skepticism, especially in politicized contexts.
• ➤ Framing science as “buried in bullshit” may be weaponized by those seeking to delegitimize all expertise.
• Particularly in an era of misinformation, critiques that lack balance can feed anti-intellectual rhetoric.

---

🔍 5. Insufficient Engagement with Structural and Systemic Solutions

• Critique: The authors point out reward systems and publication bias, but their solutions (like “be honest” and “nurture nuance”) are mostly individualistic or idealistic.
• ➤ There is limited exploration of institutional reform, peer-review models, or systemic accountability structures.
• The article’s call to “prioritise scholarship” is morally noble but structurally vague.

---

🧷 6. Lack of Reflexivity

• Critique: While they call out bullshit in others, the authors don’t interrogate their own positionality, rhetorical choices, or institutional complicity.
• ➤ They themselves participate in a system of publication, citation, and visibility—yet offer little self-critique.
• Their rhetorical tone often mimics the same confident certainty they critique in others.

---

🎭 7. Theatrical Tone and Rhetorical Grandstanding

• Critique: The title (“Buried in Bullshit”) and repeated use of provocative language risks coming across as performative rather than analytical.
• ➤ While attention-grabbing, this tone may alienate more conservative scholars or those seeking constructive dialogue.
• Phrases like “we’re fed up with all the bullshit” sound more like manifesto than measured scholarship.