If there isn't a concrete example of the statement that you can discover, then it's up to the person who uttered the phrase to give you one. If they can't do th

If there isn't a concrete example of the statement that you can discover, then it's up to the person who uttered the phrase to give you one. If they can't do that, they are likely bullshitting. For example, I can say "All holomorphic functions are analytic", and the fact that you cannot come up with a concrete example, or even that you don't understand the meaning of the sentence (if you don't know anything about complex analysis) still doesn't mean that it is bullshit. Metaphors are not a problem; you can also explain them in the above sense. > "Careful study leads one to hidden knowledge" Different people might interpret "hidden knowledge" differently, that's true. But then I would say that whether or not the statement is objectively bullshit or profound depends on the interpretation of whoever uttered the phrase was using. So if it was uttered by Deepak Chopra, it is probably bullshit. If it was uttered by Carl Sagan, it is probably profound. I mean, this problem is not specific to bullshit/profound statements, but to language in general. For example, common objection to evolution is "evolution is just a theory". Here, the word "theory" can take on two different meanings, and the truthfulness of the sentence depends on the meaning that is assigned to the word "theory". This only poses potential problem for the study, where the statements should be selected so that the confusion due to usual (assumed) meaning of words is minimized.