I suspect articles would be where you would go for "bullshit" as perhaps slightly more rigoriously quantifiable - stupidity is more a "in the wild thing". Gener

I suspect articles would be where you would go for "bullshit" as perhaps slightly more rigoriously quantifiable - stupidity is more a "in the wild thing". Generally bullshit is defined as a lack of concern for the truth vs what sounds good and supports the desired goal. A few axioms/metrics for "bullshit" for example: 1. Counts of unironic/unacknowledged logical fallacies - discussing psychology of loss aversion wouldn't be an example or even a strategic examination of loss aversion's performance and concluding it say has a niche. But stating it is better to not make an additional $10k without extra work or opportunity costs and pay a higher marginal tax rate on it? Flagged. 2. Claims which when examined closely are vacuous (having no meaning). 3. Unsupported claims which upon closer examination do not justify assertions but merely reassert more furiously. 4. Evasive chosen definitions that refuse to stay consistent as either specific or general in classifications. One gap with it is a matter of hypotheticals and implications - even a theoretical model contrary to reality can be a demonstration against a hypothesis. A fuzzier/snarkier example at a field level is a "SCI/Gen test" where even experts cannot distinguish noise from data indicates a lack of knowledge - although in a more positive sense it could just be a field's complexity being high such as description of a drug which interacts with proteins. I am no expert in it but given some infamously whimsical names they might not realize that a drug's complex organic compound that binds to the "Romero" prions wasn't a real specific subtype of prion without looking it up - let alone that the drug wouldn't bind with it let alone without unacceptable side effects.