LEARN, SHOP & CHAT ABOUT PLASTIC SURGERY, BEAUTY AND ANTI-AGING
  Specialist Directory Home    Rate My Doctor    Doctor Center
Doctor Search:

Plastic Surgeon & Dermatologist Directory - With Patient Reviews & Ratings

Rate This Individual/Business and share your opinion with other people.

Bull
VeryBoring's Review of: Dr. Marcus Eriksson

Rating: 10.00 (out of 10)
Review Date:
May 4, 2015, 11:31 am


DOCTOR INFORMATION
Doctor Name:   Dr. Marcus Eriksson (My Profile)
City:
Bergen
State:   (*)
Country:   Norway
PATIENT INFORMATION
Reviewer:   VeryBoring (Contact Me)
View My Before/After Photo Album(s):   None available
Did you get any procedure(s) done by this doctor?   Yes
Date of your procedure(s):   February 4, 2011
Procedure(s) I had done:   None
MY PERSONAL REVIEW
 

 

Bullshit (also bullcrap) is a common English expletive which may be shortened to the euphemism bull or the initialism BS. In British English, "bollocks" is a comparable expletive, although "bullshit" is more common. It is a slang profanity term meaning "nonsense", especially in a rebuking response to communication or actions viewed as deceiving, misleading, disingenuous, or false. As with many expletives, the term can be used as an interjection or as many other parts of speech, and can carry a wide variety of meanings.

It can be used either as a noun or as a verb as in the question "are you bullshitting me?". While the word is generally used in a deprecating sense, it may imply a measure of respect for language skills, or frivolity, among various other benign usages. In philosophy, Harry Frankfurt, among others, analyzed the concept of bullshit as related to but distinct from lying.

Outside of the philosophical and discursive studies, the everyday phrase bullshit conveys a measure of dissatisfaction with something or someone, but often does not describe any role of truth in the matter.
"Bull", meaning nonsense, dates from the 17th century,[1] while the term "bullshit" has been used as early as 1915 in American slang,[2] and came into popular usage only during World War II. The word "bull" itself may have derived from the Old French boul meaning "fraud, deceit".[2] The term "horseshit" is a near synonym. The South African English equivalent is "bull dust".

The earliest attestation mentioned by the Concise Oxford English Dictionary is in fact T. S. Eliot, who between 1910 and 1916 wrote an early poem to which he gave the title "The Triumph of Bullshit", written in the form of a ballade. The word bullshit does not appear in the text of the poem, and Eliot himself never published the poem.[3]

As to earlier etymology the Oxford English Dictionary cites bull with the meaning "trivial, insincere, untruthful talk or writing, nonsense". It describes this usage as being of unknown origin, but notes that in Old French, the word could mean "boul, boule, bole fraud, deceit, trickery; mod. Icel bull 'nonsense'; also ME bull BUL 'falsehood', and BULL verb, to befool, mock, cheat."[4]

Although there is no confirmed etymological connection, it should be noted that these older meanings are synonymous with the modern expression "bull", generally considered and used as a contraction of "bullshit"

Another proposal, according to the lexicographer Eric Partridge, is that the term was popularised by the Australian and New Zealand troops from about 1916 arriving at the front during World War I. Partridge claims that the British commanding officers' placed emphasis on bull; that is, attention to appearances, even when it was a hindrance to waging war. The foreign Diggers allegedly ridiculed the British by calling it bullshit.
Bullshit is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising. On one prominent occasion, the word itself was part of a controversial advertisement. During the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign, the Citizens Party candidate Barry Commoner ran a radio advertisement that began with an actor exclaiming: "Bullshit! Carter, Reagan and Anderson, it's all bullshit!" NBC refused to run the advertisement because of its use of the expletive, but Commoner's campaign successfully appealed to the Federal Communications Commission to allow the advertisement to run unedited.
"Bullshit" does not necessarily have to be a complete fabrication; with only basic knowledge about a topic, bullshit is often used to make the audience believe that one knows far more about the topic by feigning total certainty or making probable predictions. It may also merely be "filler" or nonsense that, by virtue of its style or wording, gives the impression that it actually means something.

In his essay on the subject, William G. Perry called bull[shit] "relevancies, however relevant, without data" and gave a definition of the verb "to bull[shit]" as follows:

To discourse upon the contexts, frames of reference and points of observation which would determine the origin, nature, and meaning of data if one had any. To present evidence of an understanding of form in the hope that the reader may be deceived into supposing a familiarity with content.[7]

The bullshitter generally either knows the statements are likely false, exaggerated, and in other ways misleading or has no interest in their factual accuracy one way or the other. "Talking bullshit" is thus a lesser form of lying, and is likely to elicit a correspondingly weaker emotional response: whereas an obvious liar may be greeted with derision, outrage, or anger, an exponent of bullshit tends to be dismissed with an indifferent sneer.
In his essay On Bullshit (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress:[8]

It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.

Frankfurt connects this analysis of bullshit with Ludwig Wittgenstein's disdain of "non-sense" talk, and with the popular concept of a "bull session" in which speakers may try out unusual views without commitment. He fixes the blame for the prevalence of "bullshit" in modern society upon anti-realism and upon the growing frequency of situations in which people are expected to speak or have opinions without appropriate knowledge of the subject matter.

Gerald Cohen, in "Deeper into Bullshit", contrasted the kind of "bullshit" Frankfurt describes with a different sort: nonsense discourse presented as sense. Cohen points out that this sort of bullshit can be produced either accidentally or deliberately. While some writers do deliberately produce bullshit, a person can also aim at sense and produce nonsense by mistake; or a person deceived by a piece of bullshit can repeat it innocently, without intent to deceive others.[9]

Cohen gives the example of Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries" as a piece of deliberate bullshit. Sokal's aim in creating it, however, was to show that the "postmodernist" editors who accepted his paper for publication could not distinguish nonsense from sense, and thereby by implication that their field was "bullshit".
Outside of the academic world, among natural speakers of North American English, as an interjection or adjective, bullshit conveys general displeasure, an objection to, or points to unfairness within, some state of affairs. This colloquial usage of "bullshit", which began in this 20th century, does not assign a truth score to another's discourse. It simply labels something that the speaker does not like and feels he is unable to change.
Publicly formulated the first time on January 2013[10] by Alberto Brandolini, an Italian programmer, the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle (also known as Brandolini’s law[11]) states that:

The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.

It became especially popular after a picture of a presentation by Brandolini at XP2014 on May 30, 2014 was posted on Twitter.[12]

Similar thoughts were formulated in the past[13] but they mostly focused on the speed of propagation of bullshit, whereas Brandolini's statement focuses on the difficulty of debunking it.
 
MY RATINGS IN DETAIL

N/A = Not Applicable
1 = Worst/Extremely dissatisfied
5 = Neutral
10 = Best/Extremely satisfied

My Results:
How happy are you with your results?
Did your results meet or exceed your expectations?
  (10)
Medical Skills, Techniques & Knowledge:
Does your doctor have strong and up-to-date medical skills?
Does your doctor have good knowledge of techniques?
Were you well informed by the doctor?
  (10)
Accessibility:
Was doctor accessible and helpful during pre-op and post-op?
Is there good after business hours support?
Can doctor be reached by telephone?
Can doctor be reached by email?
  (10)
Personality:
Did the doctor make you feel comfortable?
Did the doctor take time to listen to your needs?
Did you feel rushed when trying to talk?
Was the doctor friendly and approachable?
Did the doctor show care and concern for you?
Does the doctor love being a doctor?
  (10)
Office & Support Staff, Nurses:
Was the office staff professional and well-mannered?
Was staff accessible and helpful during pre-op and post-op?
Was the office staff sensitive to your condition and needs?
Were your telephone/email messages given to the doctor?
  (10)
Appointments, Waiting Time:
Was it easy to book an appointment?
Was doctor reasonably punctual with appointments?
How was the office waiting time?
  (10)
Price:
Do you feel the price of your procedure(s) was reasonable?
Does the doctor give financing options?
  (10)
Office & Surgical Facility:
Are the office and/or surgical facilities professional, clean, and well maintained?
Is the medical equipment up-to-date?
Is the office comfortable and the décor aesthetically pleasing?
Were you offered anything to drink?
  (10)
Recommending This Doctor:
How likely are you to recommend this doctor to someone else?
  (10)

Read Other Reviews of this individual/business.

Rate This Individual/Business and share your opinion with other people.