Deep-rooted education that is beneficial & respectful of all horses, disciplines, & riders. I believe that wellness in all areas is as important as education.
03/20/2025
I must concur. I either work from science, historical experience (that you can actually read for yourself), my personal experience (that I will label as such), or learned techniques (which I will give credit to plus how I've changed it's use etc.)
"The Death of Truth (and Other Fun Lies We Tell Ourselves)"🔥
You know what’s really out of fashion these days? No, not flip phones or Facebook😆- 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, I’ve 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
There’s a person out there claiming to be a "clinical neuroscientist." Sounds impressive, right? Except, their bio is the résumé equivalent of a magic trick—implying they’ve 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 you’re 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" 🙄—but then insisted that their original claim was still valid because, you know, facts are fluid now.
Then came the pièce de résistance: When asked for a legitimate reference to back up their claim, they provided completely unrelated studies. That’s like saying, "The moon is made of cheese—look, here’s a paper on dairy farming!"
When pressed further, they fell back on the all-time classic: "You’re just arguing semantics."
Yes. Yes, I am. Because words have meanings, and if you don’t think they do, I’d love to sell you a "mansion" (it’s just a tent, but let’s 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 issue—it was riddled with factual errors.
I politely pointed this out. Gave them a few concepts to check out to help their explanations. Their response? "I’m not sciency, but I believe this makes sense."
Ah. Of course. Not being ‘sciency’ now means facts don’t apply to you. Much like not being ‘mathy’ means 2 + 2 can equal whatever makes you feel safe.
And, naturally, I became the villain for daring to suggest that if you’re 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 don’t need qualifications. They don’t 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" —for no reason other than being right.
What’s 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, Let’s Get One Thing Straight😎
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 don’t have degrees—but they don't make stuff up. They don’t dress up their opinions as facts. And crucially, they’re still curious, open to learning, and deeply engaged with the science—not just when it supports their beliefs, but even when it challenges them.
So if you’re someone who values learning, accuracy, and rigorous thinking, I respect that. If you don’t have formal credentials but actually know your stuff, I rate you.
But if you’re the type who…
✅ Claims to be an expert without ever proving it.
✅ Thinks "personal truth" overrides objective reality.
✅ Dismisses critical thinking as "bullying" the moment your ideas are questioned…
…then 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 everyone’s 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 here’s the thing:
💡 Questioning claims is not an attack.
💡 Asking for evidence is not bullying.
💡 Facts don’t care about your feelings.
I don’t do comforting fiction. I don’t do 'everyone’s truth is valid,' because sometimes, it’s just not. What I do is critical thinking, real discussion, and intellectual integrity.
Explaining complex topics in a simple way is a skill—you don’t have to make things up to do it well. I can even respect if you’re not ready to accept certain things; everyone is on their own journey.
But let’s be clear—questioning 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 ‘bullying’, we don’t just damage intellectual integrity—we create a world where belief beats reality.
And here’s the problem:
🚨 Reality doesn’t care what you believe. 🚨
If you claim expertise you don’t have, you’re misleading people.
If you cite a paper that doesn’t say what you say it does, you’re misrepresenting research.
If you spread misinformation about mental health, the nervous system, or horse behaviour, training, physiology, biomechanics, trauma etc. you’re leading people astray.
And when challenged, if your response is to double down instead of getting curious and fact checking yourself, you’re 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 you’re making claims—about science, horses, or the human brain or whatever —you don’t 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, you’re not educating anyone. You’re just storytelling for an audience that prefers fiction to facts.
And quite frankly, I think we all deserve better.
