There's something I've been wondering about for a while: It seems like one is never more than three links away from some web page run by "sceptics" - people who make it their life's mission to crap all over alternative medicine, extraterrestrial life, conspiracies, psychics and other aspects perceived by the "sceptics" to pull the wool over people's eyes.
Now; I'm not going to contest their findings. Nor am I going to speculate about the fact that surprisingly few of the sceptics I've seen are even remotely connected to hard science. Sure; some very prominent members of these societies are scientists from branches that used to belong to the seven liberal arts, but this point ain't about that. The fact that this for some might conjure up images of Ozzy Osbourne referring to Michael Jackson as a weirdo, ain't what this post is about either.
Rather, I'd like to point out that the sceptics are asleep at the wheel - I've never seen them go after the cosmetic industry - a branch which continuously pushes out commercials packed with more lies in the 15 or so seconds they're on air than was uttered during the entire OJ trial. How come they don't go after any company claiming to have made a cream which eliminates wrinkles, makes your lips fuller AND increases eyelash volume by 275%?
....'cause commercials work, and when the paid model endorsing an anti-aging whatever is 17 years old, removing wrinkles ain't that impressive. Neither is it impressive when the model is someone like Andie McDowell, someone who's had so much cosmetic surgery that should she - higher powers/God/Reptilians from Planet Niburu forbid - get hit by a bus tomorrow, her body would have to be recycled in three separate bins. When the models used by the company aren't even biodegradable, one sort of loses faith in the product, whether or not she states "parce-que je le vaux bien" or whatever.
Why do these people go unscathed by the onslaught of online "sceptics"?
Now; I'm not going to contest their findings. Nor am I going to speculate about the fact that surprisingly few of the sceptics I've seen are even remotely connected to hard science. Sure; some very prominent members of these societies are scientists from branches that used to belong to the seven liberal arts, but this point ain't about that. The fact that this for some might conjure up images of Ozzy Osbourne referring to Michael Jackson as a weirdo, ain't what this post is about either.
Rather, I'd like to point out that the sceptics are asleep at the wheel - I've never seen them go after the cosmetic industry - a branch which continuously pushes out commercials packed with more lies in the 15 or so seconds they're on air than was uttered during the entire OJ trial. How come they don't go after any company claiming to have made a cream which eliminates wrinkles, makes your lips fuller AND increases eyelash volume by 275%?
....'cause commercials work, and when the paid model endorsing an anti-aging whatever is 17 years old, removing wrinkles ain't that impressive. Neither is it impressive when the model is someone like Andie McDowell, someone who's had so much cosmetic surgery that should she - higher powers/God/Reptilians from Planet Niburu forbid - get hit by a bus tomorrow, her body would have to be recycled in three separate bins. When the models used by the company aren't even biodegradable, one sort of loses faith in the product, whether or not she states "parce-que je le vaux bien" or whatever.
Why do these people go unscathed by the onslaught of online "sceptics"?
Posts
7 comments:
Well, not to support them, but one possibility could be that nobody is taking the cosmetic industry's claims seriously anyway? Just like serial commercials, do people really think they will become slim and happy and shave off three inches in waist size on their pants just by switching to Brand X cereals? I don't think people really believe that. Or the famous Axe commercial, do men really think all sexy women within 100 yards would be really turned on if you just use enough Axe? Or all the mumbo-jumbo pseudo-science on bottled water commercials?
My beef with the skeptics (and the reason why I don't join them) are the following:
In my opinion, science is the best way of explaining the nature and all the phenomena around us. I can't see that any religious or "alternative" views do that better then science. I also, as the skeptics does, feel that you should have a fair amount of skeptic thinking to the world around us.
However, I also believe that people should be allowed to have a religious belief, and that should be OK. I also believe that there is nothing wrong with being a scientist and have a religious belief at the same time (though, they shouldn't be mixed). This point seems not to be accepted by at least some skeptics. But the main beef is: Skeptics in general are way too little skeptical about scientific data and the interpretation of them.
Well, not to support them, but one possibility could be that nobody is taking the cosmetic industry's claims seriously anyway?
See; that's what I assumed too, but then why do they keep spending lots of time going after alien abductions and people who have been told by reprilians from Planet Niburu that the world is ending in 2012, and that there are not enough seats on the spaceship behind the comet? The same logic should apply here, yet mysteriously these people spend an exorbitant amount of time battling these beliefs.
I also believe that there is nothing wrong with being a scientist and have a religious belief at the same time (though, they shouldn't be mixed). This point seems not to be accepted by at least some skeptics.
...it's hard to argue with the multitude of Nobel laureates who were devoted to their religion. Sheer statistics ought to tell you that having a religious belief and being a kick-ass scientist are not contradictory.
Skeptics in general are way too little skeptical about scientific data and the interpretation of them.
Most of the time this is what I feel as well, which I think is closely related to my observation of few sceptics being actual scientists (same caveats as mentioned in my original post). The truth is that you'd have to be quite the noob at science, or pretty damn naïve, if you swallow the conclusions from any given scientific article hook, line and sinker just based on it being on PubMed.
That's actually a pet peeve of mine - douchebags who use their Google-Fu to copy-and-paste abstracts from Medline or whatever and try to pass that off as knowledge. If you don't know that the abstract is like the movie trailer, then your sum total of literature search know-how is jack and shit. And jack just left town.
Skeptics in general are way too little skeptical about scientific data and the interpretation of them.
Most of the time this is what I feel as well, which I think is closely related to my observation of few sceptics being actual scientists (same caveats as mentioned in my original post). The truth is that you'd have to be quite the noob at science, or pretty damn naïve, if you swallow the conclusions from any given scientific article hook, line and sinker just based on it being on PubMed.
Yes, I do believe you might have a point there. Haven't actually bothered to check who's who among the skeptics.
...douchebags who use their Google-Fu to copy-and-paste
Hey, I recent that! No need to get nasty and personal.
:-D
There are Google-Fu skills and there are Mad Google-Fu Skillz....
Better?
Mad Google-Fu Master, then? Can I put that on my resume?
Sure; why not
Post a Comment