[xikrib]

Maybe I'm taking this too seriously, but the authors seem preoccupied with airing their own frustration with the views of Deepak Chopra. Using such an author as a data source is distracting because he writes about a sort of spiritual thinking that - based on the tone of the article - the authors presumably do not practice themselves.

I would be interested to expand the author's definition of bullshit to account for instances where the 'bullshitee' has insufficient knowledge about a topic. In the same way a true statement about theoretical physics would be indistinguishable from bullshit to anyone not trained in the subject.

I found this paper close to touching on a method for understanding truthiness in generated text, but falling short into comedy.

[emmender]

This is a fair take - ie, the authors are saying what their readers want to hear using some pseudo-statistics.

In this sense, the authors are bullshitting their readers - by telling them what they want to hear (as any politician might)