If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Why does America listen to Jenny McCarthy and Suzanne Somers' scientific opinions instead of, you know, the opinions of scientists?   (salon.com) divider line 171
    More: Sad, Jenny McCarty, Mary Steenburgen, Dr. Oz, outbreaks, Jenny McCarthy, causes of autism, traditional medicine, fuddyduddies  
•       •       •

6475 clicks; posted to Geek » on 29 Oct 2013 at 10:22 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



171 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-30 02:00:26 AM  
Probably because of the same reason that she convinced me that mustard on a hot dog is awesome.
guymeetsworld.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-10-30 02:07:56 AM  
America doesn't.

Retards do.
 
2013-10-30 02:12:13 AM  

SilentStrider: Man was captain of his wrestling team in high school, he might know a thing or two about keeping fit.


And he wrestled in college too
 
2013-10-30 02:32:06 AM  

hubiestubert: I have an easy method to help remedy this, but it will take a few generations, and some concerted effort on all our parts, and that it is voiced by John Waters, should give it the weight that a celebrity crazed public can understand:

'If you go home with somebody, and they don't have books, don't f*ck 'em!'

Seriously, folks. You have the power. Ladies, that goes double for y'all.


It's an outdated idea... I don't have many paper books left. I don't have room for them, and I've converted to digital in the past few years...  So my bookshelf isn't exactly visible to visitors.

Meanwhile, speaking as a former bookseller, I am absolutely certain that many people buy books with no intention of ever reading them; They are, instead, part of the decor. Every time Oprah endorsed a book we sold a ton of them, and from conversing with my customers I can tell you that maybe 20% of the books sold were ever cracked open. The rest were coffee table decor, or placed in a bookshelf to make people think the homeowner was well-informed and up on the latest trends.

We had people who would come in and buy several best-sellers each month, and in later encounters with them it was clear they never read the books they bought; They were just for show.

So the entire practice of judging a person with a large library or bookshelf as "intellectual" is flawed from the beginning. OWNING books doesn't necessarily prove you actually READ books, and a lack of visible books does not indicate that someone is a non-reader.
 
2013-10-30 02:35:09 AM  

Mad_Radhu: [img.fark.net image 425x355]

I dunno. You really can't trust the rain to get all the blood off, and dried blood is pretty obvious even on a red car.


It is my opinion that he's not spraying water on the car, but vacuuming it off the car.
 
2013-10-30 03:01:59 AM  

Peki: fusillade762: So... both sides are bad so vote bimbo?

HA! Not politically!

Science-wise? Well. What's your definition of science? You wait five minutes and suddenly "science" has a new opinion on whether or not coffee is good for you (peer reviewed or not). So if "science" can't make up its mind on coffee, how does the general public know to trust it on vaccines? Especially when you can go through history and see time and time again where science says, "This is GREAT!" and a handful of years later we're all, "oops our bad." Doesn't inspire trust, and trust is something science in the U.S. does not have. I don't take this to an extreme; I've never been a climate change denier. Just wary is all.

Americans are too lazy to do their own research, and the word science gets thrown around too much.


There's so much wrong ...where to start?

Your first problem is getting science from popular media. Second problem is lack of education on science topics, and what good scientific design is.

Third problem, believing medicine and epidemiology are certain sciences that will not deliver conflicting messages from different studies on complex questions. That you complain about this is really pointing out the first two problems.
 
2013-10-30 03:43:51 AM  
imageshack.us
 
2013-10-30 04:11:31 AM  

RatMaster999: America doesn't.

Retards do.


False dichotomy.
 
2013-10-30 04:26:49 AM  

Krieghund: Unconsciously we associate success with expertise. Not just expertise in their specific field, but general expertise across all fields.


I find it to be a generation thing.  My inlaws who are in their 60's - 70's will innately trust any sort of person who appears on the TV.  By their thinking if the person wasn't an expert in the matter they wouldn't be on the TV, thus anyone who appears on TV is an expert.   Same for Doctors (they never lie, never get things wrong, are never too lazy to do a proper check up, etc.) and people in positions of power (police, politicians, their bank manager, etc.) all experts and all completely trustworthy.   This is a fairly common attitude amongst this age group and older.

I'm in my 30's and trust noone until they've proven themselves trustworthy; same for respect it's earned not blindly given.  Which seems to be the common attitude for people around my age and younger.

So somewhere, both here and on your side of the Atlantic something happened in those 30 years to cause a massive change in attitude towards things.

ongbok: Scientist scary scary to most people because they speak in terms that most people can't understand or think that they can't understand because they shut off their brains once somebody is introduced as a scientist.

Bubbly giggly blonde big tittied talk show host don't have that problem.


Yep or when on the show they're instructed to dumb it down so far that instead of describing an experiment to detect Gravitons they could be describing a mince pie... it's so vague you might as well of got the blonde kitten killer in.
 
2013-10-30 04:30:10 AM  
Anne.Uumellmahaye: and frequently use the phrase "wake up, sheeple."

I wish the sheeple would wake up.  Although that's probably being unkind to sheep, lets call such people starfish instead; an organism that has no brain and eats with its asshole.   Because you've got to be fairly dumb to believe the sort of crap being spouted.
 
2013-10-30 04:33:23 AM  

jonny_q: BKITU: Many years ago, a good friend of mine and I tried to come up with the Rules of Life. This is the list in its entirety:Rule #1: People... are stupid.
.
/Every attempt to come up with a subsequent Rule turned out to be a variant of Rule #1.

You and I have the same friend, except it was refer to as a Law.


Also known as Wizards First Rule.
 
2013-10-30 04:38:49 AM  

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: Your first problem is getting science from popular media. Second problem is lack of education on science topics, and what good scientific design is.


It is possible to get good science information from mass media. It's a matter of knowing where to look and having the critical thinking skills to separate fact from bollocks and being able to identify the sources of both.

Sadly this is all too rare, and part of it seems to be that people will trust a name they recognise simply because it is familiar or because they heard that first and let confirmation bias settle in. I've had people spout complete and utter shiate to me claiming it was fact because they "read it in an article." Then can't tell me what the article was, where it was published, who wrote it, what purpose the writer had, what sources were used or what further research on that subject would reveal. Because they never thought to ask.

Now on the subject of quality science in media, I definitely recommend The Infinite Monkey Cage on BBC Radio 4.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/timc

It's a mix of comedy and science discussion with hosts and panellists from both backgrounds. There's a fair bit of speculation and opinion mixed in with the solid facts but they are always certain to explain which is which. It's also a great example of why I love Radio 4 so much. Because it is that rare or possibly unique entity amongst mass media outlets, one that is entirely unafraid to be intelligent and educated, and to expect the same from its audience.
 
2013-10-30 04:46:32 AM  

Contrabulous Flabtraption: SilentStrider: kronicfeld: Scientists don't get invited on daytime talk shows.

Neil Degrasse-Tyson does.

That douchebag is the Jenny McCarthy of science.


Why the NDT hate?

I'm kinda getting a QA vibe here ...
 
2013-10-30 04:48:05 AM  
Gordon Bennett:   It's a matter of knowing where to look and having the critical thinking skills to separate fact from bollocks and being able to identify the sources of both.

..and avoiding confirmation bias.
 
2013-10-30 05:07:27 AM  

nulluspixiusdemonica: Gordon Bennett:   It's a matter of knowing where to look and having the critical thinking skills to separate fact from bollocks and being able to identify the sources of both.

..and avoiding confirmation bias.


Yes. I agree with that completely, so I know you must be right.
 
2013-10-30 05:45:53 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-10-30 05:51:08 AM  

wxboy: Most scientists are pretty terrible at PR.  They worry more about the science.


No they don't, they worry more about getting published because then they get the grants.
There has been a very disturbing trend over the last while. The idea of the scientific method is that it needs to be peer reviewed to confirm its validity. That isn't happening. Slashdot had a good link on it a couple of days ago about Amgen actually sitting down and peer reviewing 53 different published papers regarding cancer and blood biology. They only successfully replicated 6. Sad thing is this issue has been known for a long while and all of a sudden it is just now coming to light in the MSM.
 
2013-10-30 05:58:05 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Because half of all Americans are of below average intelligence?


...you mean "...below median intelligence," of course.

/guess we just figured out which half you're in.
//math is hard
 
2013-10-30 06:31:10 AM  

Peki: Well, I don't listen to the medical opinions of Suzanne Somers and Jenny McCarthy, but I don't think U.S. scientists are without agendas either. They have motivations, are biased, have political interests, have egos, get plied by the pharmaceutical companies, all of which can play when forming their opinions. Hell, I just read an article that criticized a farking ob/gyn because he told women it's okay if you pee during exercise. So, no, I don't believe necessarily believe anything anyone tells me at first light, doesn't matter if you're a 20-yr expert in your field or a dumbass off the street. You could be wrong. I'll form my opinions once I've done my own reading and research. Most of the time, people are just too lazy to do their own research (me too).

Also, regardless of field, experience, or education, generally the people who try the hardest to convince you that they are right are the ones who have the most at stake if found to be wrong. The more someone tries to convince me, the more suspicious I get.


Good idea, lump everyone in the same category and dont believe anything you cant hypothesize yourself.

You better get started on your research, you have a lot of ground to cover.
 
2013-10-30 06:44:54 AM  
For the same reason people believe Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, Savage, Coulter, etc.

They're stupid.
 
2013-10-30 06:47:59 AM  
Part of the blame besides the big distrust in big pharma is the world of instant media. You could blog something, post it and tomorrow it could be taken as fact by the world in a few days
 
2013-10-30 06:54:23 AM  

scotchcrotch: Peki: Well, I don't listen to the medical opinions of Suzanne Somers and Jenny McCarthy, but I don't think U.S. scientists are without agendas either. They have motivations, are biased, have political interests, have egos, get plied by the pharmaceutical companies, all of which can play when forming their opinions. Hell, I just read an article that criticized a farking ob/gyn because he told women it's okay if you pee during exercise. So, no, I don't believe necessarily believe anything anyone tells me at first light, doesn't matter if you're a 20-yr expert in your field or a dumbass off the street. You could be wrong. I'll form my opinions once I've done my own reading and research. Most of the time, people are just too lazy to do their own research (me too).

Also, regardless of field, experience, or education, generally the people who try the hardest to convince you that they are right are the ones who have the most at stake if found to be wrong. The more someone tries to convince me, the more suspicious I get.

Good idea, lump everyone in the same category and dont believe anything you cant hypothesize yourself.

You better get started on your research, you have a lot of ground to cover.


No, he's right. Anyone who was willing to devote any significant effort to convincing an imbecile like him of anything would have to be a highly suspect individual.
 
2013-10-30 07:04:39 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Do you mean "America", subby, or do you mean "low information easily entertained short attention span losers"?


there is a difference?
 
2013-10-30 07:06:50 AM  

SilentStrider: kronicfeld: Scientists don't get invited on daytime talk shows.

Neil Degrasse-Tyson does.


"Hey! Look, Ethel! It's that Billie Dee Williams fella!"
 
2013-10-30 07:18:37 AM  

OtherLittleGuy: SilentStrider: kronicfeld: Scientists don't get invited on daytime talk shows.

Neil Degrasse-Tyson does.

"Hey! Look, Ethel! It's that Billie Dee Williams fella!"


'Billy-D!  Billy-D!  Billy-D!'
 
2013-10-30 07:40:21 AM  
The problem with Jenny McCarthy and Suzanne Sommers isn't their desire to help others, it's the fact they are just incapable of applying a basic scientific foundation to their "beliefs".  They can't help it.  They are women, with small brains.  A brain a third the size of us.  We are men  who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn. That's what kind of men we are.
 
2013-10-30 07:49:58 AM  
People like Limbaugh and Somers and McCarthy talk like everyone else; that makes them more believable to the uneducated than the experts using big science words that make them sound like eggheads and know-it-alls.
 
2013-10-30 08:02:02 AM  

rikkards: wxboy: Most scientists are pretty terrible at PR.  They worry more about the science.

No they don't, they worry more about getting published because then they get the grants.
There has been a very disturbing trend over the last while. The idea of the scientific method is that it needs to be peer reviewed to confirm its validity. That isn't happening. Slashdot had a good link on it a couple of days ago about Amgen actually sitting down and peer reviewing 53 different published papers regarding cancer and blood biology. They only successfully replicated 6. Sad thing is this issue has been known for a long while and all of a sudden it is just now coming to light in the MSM.


Things that replicate become useful paradigms. Things that don't are just papers.

There's nothing shocking about a bunch of papers not replicating. As a scientist, you have to do due diligence on previous work.

Another study that was conducted about seven years ago showed that a lot of experimental statistical analyses in the literature were actually very poorly designed.

The real problem isn't just peer review, or lack of it. The problem is a compound of things they discussed in that paper from Amgen, like the fact that biology experimentation is especially messy, that nobody in that laboratory is looking over the experiment after its done , and the peer review process is not all that sensitive to reviewing problems they are not made aware of. Couple that with an almost venomous attack/defense of scientific reputation out there and a realization that publications must happen for science to proceed, and you get the current climate.

The funny thing is that the paper was from Amgen, a company like all others who is interested in cutting back their own R&D and expecting academia and startups to rescue their pipelines. Why? Because internal research is expensive, hard, and the failure rate of practical projects are better off being borne by outside groups. There is a gap between what industry expects from a peer reviewed publication and what academics expect. Industry wants reliable, immediately applicable tools/science, academia wants conversation, and discovery without necessary immediate replication and applicability.

In any event, papers should publish. Up to the scientist reading to trust them.

Industry has to get off their arse, tell their investors to suck it, and start up R&D again in new ways.
 
2013-10-30 08:04:51 AM  

Bendal: People like Limbaugh and Somers and McCarthy talk like everyone else; that makes them more believable to the uneducated than the experts using big science words that make them sound like eggheads and know-it-alls.


Some of us scientists can talk like everyone else. We're just not as photogenic.
 
2013-10-30 08:13:31 AM  
Because they were Tittylicious? You bet!
 
2013-10-30 08:36:46 AM  

docmattic: Uranus Is Huge!: Because half of all Americans are of below average intelligence?

...you mean "...below median intelligence," of course.

/guess we just figured out which half you're in.
//math is hard


Yes. It is. Glad I didn't have any math in my post.

/Vocabulary is hard.
 
2013-10-30 08:41:53 AM  

Peki: fusillade762: So... both sides are bad so vote bimbo?

HA! Not politically!

Science-wise? Well. What's your definition of science? You wait five minutes and suddenly "science" has a new opinion on whether or not coffee is good for you (peer reviewed or not). So if "science" can't make up its mind on coffee, how does the general public know to trust it on vaccines? Especially when you can go through history and see time and time again where science says, "This is GREAT!" and a handful of years later we're all, "oops our bad." Doesn't inspire trust, and trust is something science in the U.S. does not have. I don't take this to an extreme; I've never been a climate change denier. Just wary is all.

Americans are too lazy to do their own research, and the word science gets thrown around too much.


You answered your own question. If the WHOLE scientific field agrees on something (vaccines) there's pretty good evidence that has been peer-reviewed and accepted (I am sure as a scientist you know that). For the coffee thing, I doubt a serious scientist would make the stupid mistake to compare it to something as important as vaccines/global warming, hence the field has not researched it enough/or has not reached a consensus.
Hence, you are stupid. Do not talk/express every time a thought pops out. It will do wonders for you.
 
2013-10-30 09:00:25 AM  

SilentStrider: kronicfeld: Scientists don't get invited on daytime talk shows.

Neil Degrasse-Tyson does.


No Stacey, dude
 
2013-10-30 09:02:04 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Yes. It is. Glad I didn't have any math in my post.


Well, if you use IQ as the measure of "intelligence"-- and since IQ, as a measure, is supposed* to result in a normal distribution--- it seems like, hmmm........
 
2013-10-30 09:07:03 AM  
ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2013-10-30 09:08:40 AM  
This is definitely a modern American problem.  There have never been charlatans in other times and places.
 
2013-10-30 09:13:43 AM  

Leader O'Cola: Uranus Is Huge!: Yes. It is. Glad I didn't have any math in my post.

Well, if you use IQ as the measure of "intelligence"-- and since IQ, as a measure, is supposed* to result in a normal distribution--- it seems like, hmmm........


Jesus Christ! It was a light-hearted joke that, apparently, the Fark Pedantry Squad doesn't like.

Fine. I used the wrong word. Average, media... Like It really makes a difference in the context of the post.
 
2013-10-30 09:15:44 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Leader O'Cola: Uranus Is Huge!: Yes. It is. Glad I didn't have any math in my post.

Well, if you use IQ as the measure of "intelligence"-- and since IQ, as a measure, is supposed* to result in a normal distribution--- it seems like, hmmm........

Jesus Christ! It was a light-hearted joke that, apparently, the Fark Pedantry Squad doesn't like.

Fine. I used the wrong word. Average, media... Like It really makes a difference in the context of the post.


uhhh, I was saying that in a normal distribution median====average(mean)
 
2013-10-30 09:18:02 AM  

Leader O'Cola: Uranus Is Huge!: Leader O'Cola: Uranus Is Huge!: Yes. It is. Glad I didn't have any math in my post.

Well, if you use IQ as the measure of "intelligence"-- and since IQ, as a measure, is supposed* to result in a normal distribution--- it seems like, hmmm........

Jesus Christ! It was a light-hearted joke that, apparently, the Fark Pedantry Squad doesn't like.

Fine. I used the wrong word. Average, media... Like It really makes a difference in the context of the post.

uhhh, I was saying that in a normal distribution median====average(mean)


Sorry. It's early here.

And I suck at math.
 
2013-10-30 09:18:16 AM  

Leader O'Cola: Marcus Aurelius: Do you mean "America", subby, or do you mean "low information easily entertained short attention span losers"?

there is a difference?


Americans are dumb.
 
2013-10-30 09:20:35 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Harry_Seldon: I wouldn't ask him how to improve the appearance of my thighs...or would i?

img.fark.net

He actually knows a bit about that

/yes that's him


There's a reason the whole 'Badass' meme got associated with him:

www.geekquality.com

The Doc's got some guns on him.
 
2013-10-30 09:21:53 AM  
And, apparently, his gravitational field attracts the ladies like Jupiter to the Galiean moons:

i.imgur.com
 
2013-10-30 09:29:10 AM  

MayoSlather: There's nothing wrong with Suzanne Somers' opinions. The problem is people just heard part of what she had to say and took it out of context. It's all a giant misunderstanding.


OK, but if wacky hijinks ensue as a result, I'm blaming you!
 
2013-10-30 09:33:55 AM  
Obamacare caused drink prices to soar at the Regal Beagle.
 
2013-10-30 09:38:07 AM  
Because Oprah and sheeple believe everything Oprah says.
 
2013-10-30 09:41:20 AM  

ongbok: Scientist scary scary to most people because they speak in terms that most people can't understand or think that they can't understand because they shut off their brains once somebody is introduced as a scientist.

Bubbly giggly blonde big tittied talk show host don't have that problem.


Just because someone calls himself a scientist, it doesn't make him or her automatically right because they use big words and expensive equipment and loosely followed a method.  Scientists built the atom bomb.  While Jenny McCarthy or Suzanne Somers (and the Kardasshians and all those others) might be implicated in the figurative downfall of society, scientists are surely going to be responsible for the literal destruction of society, should it happen.

/Off to get my coffee...which, according to scientists, has been good or bad for me over the past 30 years' worth of studies.  Being an odd numbered year, it must be good for me.
//or bad
 
2013-10-30 09:52:53 AM  

Peki: Well, I don't listen to the medical opinions of Suzanne Somers and Jenny McCarthy, but I don't think U.S. scientists are without agendas either. They have motivations, are biased, have political interests, have egos, get plied by the pharmaceutical companies, all of which can play when forming their opinions. Hell, I just read an article that criticized a farking ob/gyn because he told women it's okay if you pee during exercise. So, no, I don't believe necessarily believe anything anyone tells me at first light, doesn't matter if you're a 20-yr expert in your field or a dumbass off the street. You could be wrong. I'll form my opinions once I've done my own reading and research. Most of the time, people are just too lazy to do their own research (me too).


There isn't a lot of money in vaccines (compared to the rest of Big Pharma's wares), particularly as the patents have expired on a lot of them. The vaccines are also widely used and approved by a LOT of non-US governments based on studies by non-US scientists and health experts.

There is as close to unanimous agreement on most vaccines as is possible. The Wakefield MMR controversy even didn't start out as "MMR causes Autism". Wakefield noted that in the tiny group of children he looked at (12 kids IIRC) a surprising portion of the kids who had autism who had received the MMR vaccine also had a bowel condition. The study reported there was a possible casual link between the three issues and that further study might be warranted. Then the media got hold of it, Wakefield saw the opportunity for fame and fortune and everything went downhill from there.
 
2013-10-30 10:03:19 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Do you mean "America", subby, or do you mean "low information easily entertained short attention span losers"?


So America then?

/just berated someone with a graduate degree in psychology for pushing Sex At Dawn on people yesterday.

//yes, he is a formerly overweight male that now runs a sex cult using the hypnotic personality he developed through his study of psychology. Why do you ask?
 
2013-10-30 10:06:38 AM  

Bazzlex001: Marcus Aurelius: Do you mean "America", subby, or do you mean "low information easily entertained short attention span losers"?

So America then?

/just berated someone with a graduate degree in psychology for pushing Sex At Dawn on people yesterday.

//yes, he is a formerly overweight male that now runs a sex cult using the hypnotic personality he developed through his study of psychology. Why do you ask?


Americans are Dumb.
 
2013-10-30 10:52:18 AM  
There should be a special circle of hell reserved for that boob, Jenny McCarthy.

First she self-diagnoses her son as having autism, which she then blames on vaccinations based on nothing.

Then she shouts it from the rooftops until it becomes a meme and thousands stop vaccinating their children as a result, putting everyone at risk.

Finally she comes clean and admits that, yea, my kid never had autism in the first place.  But she does it quietly and with none of the fire and brimstone of her original bullsiat claim leaving many dumb and uniformed still afraid to vaccinate their kids, STILL putting so many at genuine risk.

I dont know what is more pathetic, her, or the idiots that followed her advice.


biatch
 
Displayed 50 of 171 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report