Skip to main content

Definitions by Dumu The Void

The 8 Axes of the Bullshit Spectrum

A framework for evaluating bullshit along eight key dimensions. The 8 axes are: 1) Truth-Indifference (how little the speaker cares about truth), 2) Evidence-Deficit (how unsupported the claim is), 3) Plausibility (how believable the claim is on its face), 4) Motivation (what the speaker gains from the bullshit), 5) Harm Potential (how much damage the bullshit can cause), 6) Virality (how likely it is to spread), 7) Resistance to Correction (how hard it is to debunk), and 8) Systemicity (whether it's isolated bullshit or part of a larger bullshit system). These axes allow for nuanced evaluation of bullshit, distinguishing between different types and degrees.
The 8 Axes of the Bullshit Spectrum *Example: "They stopped just calling things 'bullshit' and started mapping them on the 8 axes. The advertising claim was high on truth-indifference, low on harm potential. The conspiracy theory was high on everything—truth-indifference, harm, virality, resistance. The axes showed why one was annoying and the other dangerous—and why responding required different strategies."*

Theory of the Bullshit Spectrum

The theory that bullshit exists on a spectrum, not as a binary category. Bullshit, in the philosophical sense (following Harry Frankfurt), is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth—not lying (which cares about truth enough to negate it), but bullshitting (which doesn't care at all). The Bullshit Spectrum recognizes that claims can be more or less bullshit, in different dimensions, for different purposes. A politician's vague promise is bullshit—but maybe low-grade, situational bullshit. A conspiracy theory is higher-grade bullshit, more bullshit in more dimensions. The spectrum allows for distinguishing between different kinds and degrees of bullshit, rather than lumping everything dishonest into the same category.
Theory of the Bullshit Spectrum Example: "He called everything he disagreed with 'bullshit.' The Theory of the Bullshit Spectrum showed why that was useless: some things were more bullshit than others, in different ways. The politician's exaggeration was bullshit, but low-grade, situational. The conspiracy theory was high-grade, multidimensional bullshit. Treating them the same made it impossible to respond appropriately."

The 16 Axes of the Evidence Spectrum

An expanded framework for even more nuanced evaluation, adding eight dimensions to the original eight. The additional axes include: 9) Temporal Relevance (how current the evidence is), 10) Ecological Validity (how well the evidence reflects real-world conditions), 11) Mechanistic Understanding (whether we know why the evidence works), 12) Alternative Explanations (how thoroughly competing explanations have been ruled out), 13) Effect Size (how large the observed effect is, not just whether it's statistically significant), 14) Precision (how narrow the confidence intervals are), 15) Generalizability (how well the findings apply across contexts), and 16) Transparency (how fully the methods and data are available for scrutiny). The 16 axes provide a nearly complete picture of evidential quality, useful for high-stakes decisions where nuance matters.
The 16 Axes of the Evidence Spectrum *Example: "The policy debate was high-stakes, so they used all 16 axes. The evidence was strong on reliability and rigor, weak on ecological validity and generalizability. The 16 axes showed exactly where the uncertainty lay—not in whether the evidence existed, but in how well it applied. The policy was informed, not determined, by evidence—which is how it should be."*

The 8 Axes of the Evidence Spectrum

A framework for evaluating evidence along eight key dimensions, providing a comprehensive map of where any piece of evidence falls. The 8 axes are: 1) Strength (how powerfully the evidence supports the claim), 2) Reliability (how trustworthy the source/method is), 3) Relevance (how directly the evidence addresses the claim), 4) Independence (how free the evidence is from conflict of interest), 5) Replicability (how consistently the finding can be reproduced), 6) Sample/Population Fit (how well the sample represents the population of interest), 7) Methodological Rigor (how well the study was designed and executed), and 8) Consilience (how well the evidence coheres with other established knowledge). These axes allow for nuanced evaluation rather than binary judgments.
The 8 Axes of the Evidence Spectrum Example: "They stopped arguing about whether the study was 'evidence' and started mapping it on the 8 axes. Strength: moderate. Reliability: high. Relevance: low (different population). Independence: questionable (industry funded). The axes showed where the evidence was strong and where it was weak—and why they disagreed about what it meant."

Theory of the Evidence Spectrum

The theory that evidence exists on a spectrum, not as a binary category of "evidence" vs. "not evidence." The Evidence Spectrum recognizes that claims can be supported by evidence to varying degrees, in different dimensions, from different sources. A single anecdote is evidence—weak evidence, low on the spectrum, but still evidence. A randomized controlled trial is stronger evidence, higher on the spectrum. A meta-analysis of many trials is stronger still. The spectrum includes many dimensions: strength, relevance, reliability, independence, replicability. The Theory of the Evidence Spectrum calls for evaluating where evidence falls on multiple axes, not simply asking "is there evidence?" The question is never whether evidence exists but how good it is, how relevant, how reliable—where it sits on the spectrum.
Example: "He dismissed her anecdote as 'not evidence.' The Theory of the Evidence Spectrum showed why that was wrong: it was evidence, just low on the spectrum—weak, but still evidence. Dismissing it entirely was itself unscientific. She wasn't claiming it proved anything; she was claiming it pointed somewhere. The spectrum let them discuss where it fell, not whether it counted."

Capitalist Hyperrealism

The belief that capitalist economics doesn't just describe markets but constitutes reality—that everything can and should be understood in economic terms, that market logic applies to all domains, that value is what the market says it is. Capitalist Hyperrealism reduces love to transaction, art to investment, life to human capital. It sees the world through the lens of profit and calls that vision reality. It produces a world perfectly optimized for extraction and utterly impoverished in everything else. Capitalist Hyperrealism is the philosophy of those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Example: "He evaluated everything by market logic: relationships as exchanges, skills as assets, time as investment. Capitalist Hyperrealism had made him economically rational and humanly bankrupt. When she spoke of love, he calculated costs and benefits. She left; he couldn't understand why the transaction failed. He had perfect models of everything and experience of nothing."

Scientistic Hyperrealism

A particularly aggressive form of scientific hyperrealism that doesn't just privilege science but actively attacks other ways of knowing as not just inferior but illegitimate. Scientistic Hyperrealism is the fundamentalism of the laboratory, the zealotry of the data-driven. It doesn't just ignore poetry; it burns it. It doesn't just question philosophy; it mocks it. It doesn't just doubt religion; it despises it. Scientistic Hyperrealism is science as ideology, method as dogma, measurement as meaning. It's what happens when the scientific attitude becomes a scientific religion.
Example: "He didn't just disagree with philosophy; he ridiculed it. He didn't just question art; he dismissed it. Scientistic Hyperrealism had made him a missionary for method, a crusader for data. When she spoke of meaning, he demanded operational definitions. When she spoke of value, he demanded measurements. He had all the tools of science and none of the wisdom it requires."