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 62
    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 (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-10-29 08:36:15 PM  
9 votes:
Because of Boobies?

(No Fark filters were tripped in the making of this post)
2013-10-29 09:37:37 PM  
7 votes:
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.
2013-10-29 08:47:20 PM  
7 votes:
Do you mean "America", subby, or do you mean "low information easily entertained short attention span losers"?
2013-10-29 08:52:43 PM  
5 votes:
Because everyone knows science is based on fact. And facts have a liberal bias.
2013-10-30 01:14:03 AM  
4 votes:
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.
2013-10-29 11:25:33 PM  
4 votes:
The people I know who believe in things such as these also believe that the government is injecting the poor with diseases, the president and congress control gas prices, drug companies are causing the illnesses that they treat, and frequently use the phrase "wake up, sheeple."

These are not people that I spend any significant amount of time trying to figure out.
2013-10-30 12:46:32 AM  
3 votes:

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.


"Science" says no such thing.  Media outlets trying to make a quick buck off "science" says that.

3.bp.blogspot.com
2013-10-30 12:14:42 AM  
3 votes:
2013-10-29 10:16:07 PM  
3 votes:
Because people are dumb.

Because people don't like to think that scientists are smarter or, let's say more knowledgeable about certain topics, than they are, and that their 'common sense', like what Susanne Somers and Jenny McCartney sell, is just as good, if not better.
2013-10-30 08:02:02 AM  
2 votes:

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 06:44:54 AM  
2 votes:
For the same reason people believe Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, Savage, Coulter, etc.

They're stupid.
2013-10-30 05:45:53 AM  
2 votes:
upload.wikimedia.org
2013-10-30 02:32:06 AM  
2 votes:

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 01:01:31 AM  
2 votes:
Money.

I mean, I don't listen to them, and seriously have trouble dealing with people that do.

I have to walk away because the stupid is that painful.
2013-10-30 12:44:25 AM  
2 votes:

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


now.uiowa.edu

He actually knows a bit about that

/yes that's him
2013-10-29 11:47:34 PM  
2 votes:
"We're in trouble as a species if people refuse to believe in things they couldn't actually do themselves."  --David MItchell
2013-10-29 11:35:32 PM  
2 votes:

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.


I'm hoping that English isn't your first language here, because if you mean what you wrote, you should definitely consider posting less.

// I'd also hope that you don't vote.
// While we're at it, please also consider cutting your Internet service.
2013-10-29 11:27:41 PM  
2 votes:

Mugato: Just because these broads are guests of the morning squawking hen shows doesn't mean "America is listening to them".


Yeah, this is a false premise.  The real question is 'why does the media give has-been actors time to voice their uneducated opinions about snake oil?'  And the answer is 'because the actors are desperate and need attention and money and snake oil sellers dig finding rubes who think the nice stupid lady from Three's Company has the inside track about science.'
2013-10-29 10:47:28 PM  
2 votes:
Because....

a0.twimg.com
oi41.tinypic.com

That's why.
2013-10-29 10:33:29 PM  
2 votes:
Most scientists are pretty terrible at PR.  They worry more about the science.
2013-10-29 10:28:09 PM  
2 votes:
Published does not equal "listened to."

2013-10-29 09:31:12 PM  
2 votes:
Why do politicians alter or suppress scientists findings they do not like?

/money.....
2013-10-29 09:16:50 PM  
2 votes:
Because they are far more entertaining than real scientists.

No, really, thats why
2013-10-29 09:04:01 PM  
2 votes:
Just because these broads are guests of the morning squawking hen shows doesn't mean "America is listening to them".
2013-10-29 08:41:15 PM  
2 votes:
Scientists don't get invited on daytime talk shows.
2013-10-30 10:52:18 AM  
1 votes:
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
2013-10-30 09:21:53 AM  
1 votes:
And, apparently, his gravitational field attracts the ladies like Jupiter to the Galiean moons:

i.imgur.com
2013-10-30 09:20:35 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:41:53 AM  
1 votes:

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 06:31:10 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:01:59 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:07:56 AM  
1 votes:
America doesn't.

Retards do.
2013-10-30 02:00:26 AM  
1 votes:
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 01:49:07 AM  
1 votes:

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 do know that "science" isn't just one guy in a lab somewhere that changes his mind a lot, right?
2013-10-30 12:37:16 AM  
1 votes:
The cynical answer is "professional scientists are skilled at science.  Professional attention whores are skilled at whoring for attention."

The accurate answer is "America generally  doesn't listen to these morons as a rule, the thousand or so exceptions just write a lot of angry letters.  Since normal people have to drink a pint of everclear and take a club to their head a few dozen times to even conceive of the level of stupid required to seriously consider this kind of idiocy, they do not write many angry letters about it."

Silent majority, basically, though the silence is more a general eye-rolling inability to accept that anyone would take something so obviously insane seriously than the usual real indifference.

Phil Clinton: And isn't it illegal to give medical advice to people if you're not a doctor?  I remember hearing that a while ago and then google confirmed it was.  It was a few years back though.


On an individual level, yes.  Generally advocating that fluoride in the water allows the aliens to mind-control us isn't the same thing as presenting yourself as a credentialed authority and advising individuals to stop drinking water on the strength of that false authority.

Basically if you admit you aren't a medical professional, and bother large groups of people instead of giving one-on-one consultations, the professional credentialing restrictions don't apply.
2013-10-30 12:37:08 AM  
1 votes:

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.


I think it matters somewhat.
2013-10-30 12:35:02 AM  
1 votes:

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


Same thing.
2013-10-30 12:26:59 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-10-30 12:10:21 AM  
1 votes:
img.fark.net

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.
2013-10-30 12:06:07 AM  
1 votes:
www.voght.org
2013-10-30 12:04:43 AM  
1 votes:

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.


So... both sides are bad so vote bimbo?

Yeah, let me know when Somers or McCarthy are published in a peer-reviewed journal.
2013-10-30 12:01:50 AM  
1 votes:

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.


Your hated of Tyson is well documented here, but thanks for reminding folks. Now tell us how you feel about Anthony Bourdain.
2013-10-29 11:59:45 PM  
1 votes:
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.
2013-10-29 11:40:00 PM  
1 votes:
Why do people believe in snake oil?  Because they want snake oil to work, it is something real and tangible right here right now that I can acquire with minimal effort.

Because I want these things to be true, I therefore force myself to believe those things to be true.

People have an incredible aversion to being wrong about anything at anytime once they've settled on what right is.  (Partially because the first thing they expect to happen when they admit they were wrong is everyone and their uncle come and spike the football in their face and do a touchdown dance and call them stupid for every believing X in this first place, but that idea gets internalized so they have their own version of themselves prepared to do such if nobody does it to them.)

It's not just an American thing, it's a human thing.  We prefer to believe that we know best in all matters, and also like to think that each of us has our own special circumstance that makes the normal rules not apply to us, because dealing with the fact that most of us are relatively mundane and uninteresting is something of a terrifying thought.
2013-10-29 11:38:23 PM  
1 votes:

IntertubeUser: 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.

I'm hoping that English isn't your first language here, because if you mean what you wrote, you should definitely consider posting less.

// I'd also hope that you don't vote.
// While we're at it, please also consider cutting your Internet serviceself.


/ft
2013-10-29 11:16:44 PM  
1 votes:
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.
2013-10-29 11:05:37 PM  
1 votes:
buttonpushingmonkey.files.wordpress.com
Because to them, scientists talk like f@gs.
2013-10-29 10:57:23 PM  
1 votes:
Because half of all Americans are of below average intelligence?
2013-10-29 10:52:17 PM  
1 votes:
Same reason global warming deniers listen to politicians and corporate shills instead of scientists, and creationists believe a fairy tale over science. Stupidity.
2013-10-29 10:41:39 PM  
1 votes:
TITS!
2013-10-29 10:37:11 PM  
1 votes:
Because people have been listening to pretty women say stupid shiat since the beginning of time...
2013-10-29 10:33:32 PM  
1 votes:
I don't know anyone who doesn't think she's full of it.
2013-10-29 10:32:12 PM  
1 votes:

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

Neil Degrasse-Tyson does.


That douchebag is the Jenny McCarthy of science. The answer is because housewives are bored and stupid. Ever look at Facebook in the middle is the day? Page after page of nonsense from idiot housewives
2013-10-29 10:25:11 PM  
1 votes:
commoditization of gossip
2013-10-29 10:18:07 PM  
1 votes:
Because they are farking retarded.

And the media doesn't realize that it should be more involved in regulating opinion.
2013-10-29 10:06:03 PM  
1 votes:

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


I'm not sure why you repeat yourself.

/seriously, though, that's a pretty large market you're talking about.  Honey Boo Boo's show gets those ratings somewhere.
2013-10-29 09:51:23 PM  
1 votes:

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

Suzanne Sommers and Jenny McCarthy are successful, therefore they must be experts.

This is all unconscious, of course. As soon as you think about it you realize that's crazy talk.


Both successes happened, to a large extent, by posing nude for Playboy. Is there a College of Playboy Bunnies that have been hidden from academia?
2013-10-29 09:40:39 PM  
1 votes:
I hear more ridicule of Jenny McCarthy than I do if people agreeing with her.
2013-10-29 09:31:54 PM  
1 votes:

cman: Because they are far more entertaining than real scientists.

No, really, thats why


Maybe in 1994 and 1977 respectively.
2013-10-29 09:01:05 PM  
1 votes:
Unconsciously we associate success with expertise. Not just expertise in their specific field, but general expertise across all fields.

Suzanne Sommers and Jenny McCarthy are successful, therefore they must be experts.

This is all unconscious, of course. As soon as you think about it you realize that's crazy talk.
2013-10-29 08:56:39 PM  
1 votes:

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


I think he means "women"

/runs from thread
2013-10-29 08:55:51 PM  
1 votes:
America: 237 years of progress powered by gut instincts unimpeded by facts
 
Displayed 62 of 62 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report