
20/03/2025
"The Death of Truth (and Other Fun Lies We Tell Ourselves)"đĽ
You know whatâs really out of fashion these days? No, not flip phones or Facebookđ- the truth.
Yep, facts are out. Evidence? Optional. Critical thinking? Cancelled. Instead, we have vibes-based reasoning, where feelings trump facts, expertise is elitism, and anyone asking for proof is a "bully."
How do I know? Because in the last couple of weeks, Iâve apparently become the Simon Cowell of science, simply for pointing out when people are, well⌠not making sense.
Case #1: The Mysterious Expert with a Mysteriously Missing Degree
Thereâs a person out there claiming to be a "clinical neuroscientist." Sounds impressive, right? Except, their bio is the rĂŠsumĂŠ equivalent of a magic trickâimplying theyâve studied multiple medical and biomedical disciplines but somehow never quite mentioning a degree or official qualification.
So, I asked a reasonable question: "What are your qualifications?"
Answer? Crickets. The only thing that followed was a post about how they had been the targeted by cyberbullies. Because apparently, expecting transparency from someone offering mental health advice is just mean-spirited gatekeeping.
The new rule of online discourse: If you say youâre an expert, you are one. No credentials required. Just believe!
Case #2: The Science Page That Took Creative Liberties
A well-known page dedicated to scientific discussion posted a quote from a newly published research paper, claiming it supported a fascinating new idea about horses.
Just one problem: the actual paper never mentioned horses. At all.
When this was pointed out, they quietly edited the "typo" đâbut then insisted that their original claim was still valid because, you know, facts are fluid now.
Then came the pièce de rĂŠsistance: When asked for a legitimate reference to back up their claim, they provided completely unrelated studies. Thatâs like saying, "The moon is made of cheeseâlook, hereâs a paper on dairy farming!"
When pressed further, they fell back on the all-time classic: "Youâre just arguing semantics."
Yes. Yes, I am. Because words have meanings, and if you donât think they do, Iâd love to sell you a "mansion" (itâs just a tent, but letâs not get caught up in semantics).
Case #3: The Social Media Scholar Who Loves Science (But Not That Much)
A well-meaning person posted a long explanation about the nervous system and dissociation. One small issueâit was riddled with factual errors.
I politely pointed this out. Gave them a few concepts to check out to help their explanations. Their response? "Iâm not sciency, but I believe this makes sense."
Ah. Of course. Not being âsciencyâ now means facts donât apply to you. Much like not being âmathyâ means 2 + 2 can equal whatever makes you feel safe.
And, naturally, I became the villain for daring to suggest that if youâre going to confidently explain neuroscience, it helps to actually understand neuroscience....not to mention it's really interesting!
Case #4: The Guru Who Knows Everything (Except How to Prove It)
Ah, the Guru. The wise, enlightened horse trainer / life coach / healer of all wounds and traumas. The one who speaks in vague profundities and whose greatest gift to the world is their deep personal insights (that just so happen to contradict known science).
They donât need qualifications. They donât need evidence. They just know.
And if you ask for proof? Well, you simply "lack awareness." You are "closed-minded," a product of a broken system.
And so, we are left with The Great Paradox of the Guru: They claim to have profound, secret knowledge about the world⌠but somehow, the moment anyone questions them, they collapse into victimhood. They are being "attacked," "bullied," and "persecuted" âfor no reason other than being right.
Whatâs fascinating is that their followers will then flock to their defense, not by presenting facts, but by telling you how the Guru makes them feel. Because in the Age of Anti-Intellectualism, good vibes are more important than good information.
Now, Letâs Get One Thing Straightđ
Before anyone starts clutching their crystals, let me be absolutely clear: I do not believe that formal qualifications are the only path to knowledge and evidence exists in different forms and levels. You don't have to be "sciency" to have really cool insights to share.
Some of the most insightful, skilled, and knowledgeable horse people I know donât have degreesâbut they don't make stuff up. They donât dress up their opinions as facts. And crucially, theyâre still curious, open to learning, and deeply engaged with the scienceânot just when it supports their beliefs, but even when it challenges them.
So if youâre someone who values learning, accuracy, and rigorous thinking, I respect that. If you donât have formal credentials but actually know your stuff, I rate you.
But if youâre the type whoâŚ
â
Claims to be an expert without ever proving it.
â
Thinks "personal truth" overrides objective reality.
â
Dismisses critical thinking as "bullying" the moment your ideas are questionedâŚ
âŚthen I am not your cup of tea. In fact, I am probably the double-shot espresso of critical thinking, and I will not apologise for that.
If you believe that everyoneâs opinion is equally valid, regardless of whether it aligns with reality, you should probably just unfollow me now. If facts make you uncomfortable, block me and retreat into the warm embrace of pseudoscience.
I am always respectful in my approach to people if I ever do question, ask for evidence or point out an inaccuracy.
Because hereâs the thing:
đĄ Questioning claims is not an attack.
đĄ Asking for evidence is not bullying.
đĄ Facts donât care about your feelings.
I donât do comforting fiction. I donât do 'everyoneâs truth is valid,' because sometimes, itâs just not. What I do is critical thinking, real discussion, and intellectual integrity.
Explaining complex topics in a simple way is a skillâyou donât have to make things up to do it well. I can even respect if youâre not ready to accept certain things; everyone is on their own journey.
But letâs be clearâquestioning or disagreeing with you does not mean I am bullying you.
Why This Matters
When we let people fabricate expertise, misrepresent research, and reject correction as âbullyingâ, we donât just damage intellectual integrityâwe create a world where belief beats reality.
And hereâs the problem:
đ¨ Reality doesnât care what you believe. đ¨
If you claim expertise you donât have, youâre misleading people.
If you cite a paper that doesnât say what you say it does, youâre misrepresenting research.
If you spread misinformation about mental health, the nervous system, or horse behaviour, training, physiology, biomechanics, trauma etc. youâre leading people astray.
And when challenged, if your response is to double down instead of getting curious and fact checking yourself, youâre part of the problem.
Final Thought
I have channelled my inner Tim Minchin for this post because I am currently reading his book "You Don't Have to Have a Dream". He might be satirist, musical comedian but he is also an unapologetic advocate for reason, evidence, and critical thinking. Here are two of my favourite Tim quotes:
Firstly, to all the scientists out there....
"Do you know what they call a scientist who questions everything, demands evidence, and changes their mind when confronted with new facts? A good scientist.."
And then to everyone...
"We must think critically, and not just about the ideas of others. Be hard on your beliefs. Take them out onto the verandah and hit them with a cricket bat. Be intellectually rigorous."
If youâre making claimsâabout science, horses, or the human brain or whatever âyou donât get to just manifest them into truth.
You need evidence.
And if someone points something out, maybe that is a heads up to consider your claims.
Otherwise, youâre not educating anyone. Youâre just storytelling for an audience that prefers fiction to facts.
And quite frankly, I think we all deserve better.