Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience

Archae

(46,831 posts) Mon Jul 30, 2018, 12:43 PM Jul 2018

Here are nine celebrities who have pushed dangerously bad science on the public

In our post-truth era, scientific illiteracy has morphed into science denialism. Today, people simply declare their own truths. As a consequence, science is losing its platform as a source of truth. Meanwhile, a pervasive celebrity culture — in which celebrities are considered trusted “experts” solely because of their fame — has poisoned the idea of what constitutes expertise.

Nowhere is the merger of these two trends more evident than in our embrace of “celebrity science,” which, because it often involves issues of health, might not only be misleading but harmful. Some celebrities actually do have science backgrounds; Mayim Bialik, who has a PhD in neuroscience, springs to mind. Unfortunately, many celebrities have waded into debates within fields in which they have neither expertise nor training, perhaps unintentionally injecting doubt into scientific certainty and often even harming public health efforts. Here are a few of the worst celebrity offenders.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/nine-celebrities-pushed-dangerously-bad-science-public/

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Here are nine celebrities who have pushed dangerously bad science on the public (Original Post) Archae Jul 2018 OP

I just finished reading Ben Goldacre's 2012 book 'Bad Science' last night. SeattleVet Jul 2018 #1

Oh, I HATE it when someone recommends a book I need to read. PoindexterOglethorpe Jul 2018 #4

Offit is a great debunker Bradshaw3 Jul 2018 #2

anti vaxxers are nuts. Yes, some kids will have bad effects but more will die without the demigoddess Jul 2018 #3

SeattleVet

(5,592 posts)

1. I just finished reading Ben Goldacre's 2012 book 'Bad Science' last night.

Reply to Archae (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2018, 01:01 PM

Jul 2018

He wrote a very good series of columns for The Guardian a few years ago on scientific inaccuracy, health scares and pseudoscience, and has a website that goes into a lot of detail (badscience.net), especially in the medical area. Excellent examination of how really bad media coverage helps to perpetrate a lot of these fabrications and creates false impressions of what various research papers are really saying.

Just found a Wikipedia article that has a brief summary of each chapter. The book is definitely a worthwhile read, especially if you have friends or relatives that are always trying to spread the 'alternative woo'. I have a cousin that is always sending out all of the 'watermelon cures cancer' types of things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Science_(book)

PoindexterOglethorpe

(26,730 posts)

4. Oh, I HATE it when someone recommends a book I need to read.

Reply to SeattleVet (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 30, 2018, 11:55 PM

Jul 2018

Sigh. I'm going to check that book out (I added it to my list) next time I go to the library.

Bradshaw3

(7,962 posts)

2. Offit is a great debunker

Reply to Archae (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2018, 01:02 PM

Jul 2018

Unfortunately some on the liberal side are as easily duped as those on the right by celebs and junk science. Some of the junk science is sometimes harmless as with supplements (although not all, some have caused harm but mostly its to the pocketbook for worthless needless supplements). Others like the anti-vaxxers have done real harm and Offit has been a leader in this area.

Some on here go ballistic whenever Raw Story is the link so for those here's the original article in Salon:
https://www.salon.com/2018/07/29/six-times-celebrities-pushed-dangerously-bad-science/

demigoddess

(6,675 posts)

3. anti vaxxers are nuts. Yes, some kids will have bad effects but more will die without the

Reply to Archae (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2018, 02:20 PM

Jul 2018

universal use of vaccines. I have been immunized against a lot of stuff, so have my kids. Not one of use have problems. And how do we know that those kids weren't pre disposed to having autism etc.

Reply to this discussion