Slashdot Mirror
When Celebrities Speak on Science
Timberwolf0122 writes to mention that the website Sense About Science is encouraging stars not to comment on scientific issues without at least checking their facts. A somewhat amusing article on the BBC matches up a few comments made by celebrities with the factual reaction from experts in the field of study tackled by their blunder.
I gotta say as a scientist and professor that I agree completely with this position of reserving comment in the public spotlight until you have done a little homework. All too often we have celebrities and politicians using their status to manipulate science to bend to a political whim or will, or simply to just espouse a misunderstanding. Fundamentally, the problem is that we have a very poor science education curriculum in many schools in the US and internationally and we get individuals who are high school dropouts become actors and are now capable of garnering much attention towards their issue of the moment. That is not intended to be insulting nor does it minimize their position or status, it is simply asking them to refrain from doing a job they are not qualified for.
We have minimized the importance of science in our lives and it is now biting us collectively in the ass in terms of environment, medicine, technological progress, and education. Rather than hamstringing scientists, and only allowing them to speak when it serves the political climate of the moment, I would very much like to see a return to using scientists expertise in more areas of society and policy, perhaps even increasing the numbers of consultants for politicians, and the entertainment industry, not just as a reality check, which so many seem to be mis-using scientists for, but also as a means to spur inquiry and progress in both the arts and sciences. The model of using scientists as regulators of policy and such is as old as 1950's Sci-Fi, but it has been no accident that during the most progressive periods in history, we have relied on scientists and others who are trained to think and inquire to make some of our biggest technological advancements. These advancements include great strides in medicine, prolonging life-spans and improving the quality of life as well as ending global wars and in the absence of political influences, ending famine and disease.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Celebrities should be seen not heard.
Yet idiots in the US clammor for celebs to speak on their behalf in front of congress. I know that when I want to know more about ALAR and it's effects, I look to Merrill Streep.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
Never Gonna Happen.
Stars think that because of the fact that they are famous and are seen by millions of people, they have the right to have an opinion about anything. There are times that that is good (George Clooney on Dafur for example) and I personally have no problem with that as long as the opinion as long as it is an informed opinion. But the fact is that stars are just like end users with computer hardware or software. They are not going to read something to avoid shooting themselves in the foot. They'll just start shooting and hope for the best.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
...the article also encourage slashdot posters not to reply without first reading the article!
:s
Well, it might say that, I haven't read it yet
Oh no... it's the future.
But the real news here is -- Chris de Burgh is a "celebrity"? Does anyone here under 30 know who he was? For that matter, how many people over 30 remember who he was?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Yeesh, somebody has a low thetan count today.
I love this quote by Melinda Messenger: "Why should I allow my body or my children to be filled with man-made chemicals, when I don't know what the health effects of these substances will be."
That would be the same Melinda Messenger that has breast implants.
I've got a fever and the only prescription is more COBOL.
Even TV programs that try to get good technical advisers, like NUMB3RS, frequently get basic science and technology wrong. I don't know anyone who can crack a disk encryption scheme in a few seconds anytime they want.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
I don't know about you in the rest of the world. But here in Brasil, we would be very thankful if they stoped talking about politics also.
Your ad could be here!
'Doctor' Fox:"Did you know that genetically paedophiles have more in common with crabs than with humans? There's no evidence for this, but it's still scientific fact."
Phil Collins:"What am I talking? I'm talking 'Nonce Sense'"
Etc.,
Actually, I'd rather that the professor tell his brother the federal agent that he can get the school's computer lab machines to work in parallel, trying to brute-force the encryption, and that given the complexity of the problem, he'll have it cracked anywhere between 0 and x hours. Then the FBI agent brother could go do something else and get a call on his cell phone from the geek brother that they cracked it.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Celeb says: expert says: Yes, the body has a certain tolerance against synthetical chemicals, otherwise we wouldn't be here today, but that doesn't mean that certain chemicals you encounter in food, etc. doesn't have a bad effect on the body. In some cases we just don't know yet, and I believe this is what the celeb was saying.
Celeb says: expert says: The Celeb wasn't talking about food additives, but chemicals the animals receive and that is scientifically proven to cause problems. For example the documentary, "The Corporation", has a lengthy segment about harm caused by synthetic chemicals as told by an expert - Samuel Epstein (professor emeritus of environmental medicine, university of Illinois). The relevant example shown is the case with the Monsanto drug posilac. That drug is increasing the milk production of cows, at the expense of immense suffering on behalf of the cows and as it turned out it posed a health hazard to humans aswell. Although this is not an example of 'cancer', the prof specifically mentioned the history of synthetic chemicals. At first warning signs and then data emerged about the unintended consequences of the petrochemical era, that some of the chemicals that permiated through the food chain produce cancer, birth defects and other toxic effects.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
It's so easy to blast a celebrity for an inaccurate talk on scientific matters. However, each of us are guilty of spewing out incorrect information because we believed it was right.
I don't care if Tom Cruise or Donald Trump speak authoritatively. What I do care about is the friends, neighbors, teachers, and other adults that have an overwhelming influence over their peers (children, students, friends, etc.). To the public, Cruise & Trump are fiction. To you, your teacher talking about Evolution is real.
I expect someone will point out the difference between my neighbour and a celebrity is the latter has an audience of thousands and therefore has a larger effect. That would seem to be true, but I highly doubt it. Only the disillusioned will absorb the words of a celebrity. But embracing the information that a friend, neighbor or teacher imparts to you is a natural thing because we typically have trust in those surrounding us. A teacher has so much more authority and leverage to influence you into believing incorrectly, a level of influence that Tom Cruise cannot match.
This isn't to say that television is not influential, only that there should be stronger fears than the celebritity: those people (including ourselves) close to us that impart incorrect knowledge on a daily basis.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/
Not sure why this wasn't in the BBC article...
It's amazing how many people confuse popularity for authoritative, scientific thought. This conceit goes so far that many celebrities believe themselves. As we've already noted, people like Tom Cruise, Barbara Streisand, and Jane Fonda do this all too regularly. Why in the world would some actor know more about AIDS or cancer (even testifying in front of Congress, for frak's sake) than the average Joe or a medical professional?
Actors should be reminded that, just because they've played a doctor, doesn't make them one.
Other popular people should be pelted with rotten produce and harsh words by the anti-clique popular people whose feet are well grounded as to who they are and what they really know, like Dennis Miller (most of the time).
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
The problem is not celebrities making comments without checking the facts. The problem is news producers giving them air play without checking the facts.
I dunno, Paris Hilton's opinion on CCIE Storage certification is pretty spot-on:
http://www.routergod.com/index.php?p=30
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
To your point celebrities need to shut up about politics, world events, and their ideas of how to make the world better. That's like me offering up my opinions/knowledge of Quantum Physics... good read.. possibly amusing.. but about as useful as a turd in a punch bowl.
Eye for an eye and half of the world will have just one eye!
My ol' mother went to Catholic school for 9 years and she knew more about sex and birth control and all that than any of her other peers once she got to public high school.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
...celebrities not to comment on any issue without a brain being engaged first (theirs, or someone else's if they're lacking in that department)?
Surely a reference to Brass Eye is relevant here, as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_Eye
From a textbook on inorganic toxicology I read many years ago, and I'm paraphrasing: almost every inorganic substance that is toxic at one dosage level is needed by the body at another level, or is chemically similar to another substance that is needed by the body. The one exception they listed was arsenic. Iron is needed by humans, yet large amounts of iron is toxic. Iodine is used by the body, but its also a poison in high doses. Stronium is chemically similar to calcium, which is used by the body. This is why its absorbed if there is a deficiency in calcium.
Inorganic toxicology has a triad that determines toxicity for a given species: substance, exposure method, and dosage. Example: drinking a pint of water is generally not harmful. Inhaling a pint of water could be.
Note: I am not a doctor nor a toxicologist, nor do I play one one tv nor the internet. The above information was gathered while investigating what I that was a simple question "what is the most toxic substance in the world?", which turns out to be a far more complicated than I first thought.
"Like Al Gore commenting on man-made global warming when the best and latest science is indicating that man has little impact when compared to nature herself."
That is false, a large and growing impact on nature.
"BS, the favorite line flies in the face of other eco-nuts that say the world would have more animals, and more diversity if man weren't around. Remember, the plains were black with heards of buffalo. Whales were in super abundance, and they produce huge amounts of methane. Wildlife farts and breathes."
But it's by product was not nearly as massive as ours
"The Earth is in a warming phase, and still much cooler than the last warming cycle. Hell, we are coming out of a mini-ice-age (geologically recent)."
while true, it does nothing to explain the speed at which it is happening, and completly ignores the fact that there is more carbon in the air now then in the last 800,000 years. Yes eight hundred thousand years.
I agree Kyoto was bad, and we should not sign.
If you bothered to research some papers, you will see that we are impacting the world.
The scientific consensus says it's happening, all the research say were doing it, all the predictions of the 70's are happening at an excellerted rate.
I could go on, but people like you are more concerned with being right, and using incorrect points for some political aggend.
I think the scientist should say "Celeberties and 'WED Fan' should check their facts before opening their mouths".
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Sadly, many people consider the statment spout forth from vapid celeb to be correct, or at least worth listening to. I think there is some leftover baggage from our tribal heritage that gets triggered when someone who seems to have status speaks.
That is my opinion, and I ahve no evidence to back that up.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
... the problem with articles like these is that the criticism is not always fair.
I see nothing wrong with the first two celebrity comments.
"Why should I allow my body or my children to be filled with man-made chemicals, when I don't know what the health effects of these substances will be?"
Melinda Messenger is criticized for this because small amounts of man-made chemicals are present in the body at all times. But Melinda's remark does not deny this or address that issue at all. Her comment is about unspecified "large doses" (i.e. being "filled with") man-made chemicals. The question is perfectly fair. The implication of her remark is that the general population is being exposed to excessive dosages of toxic man-made chemicals. That by itself, is likely to be true in many cases. Yes, she should give specifics. We need to see the context of her remarks. But the above snippet is not self evidentially false, and is a perfectly fair question and concern.
"...he was in serious pain, just below the knee, and I felt the area above had been traumatised. I started feeling and I'd say within 20 minutes, he was walking again. It took away the pain."
Once again, no context is given. Chris De Burgh is singled out for what? Related the facts of what happened? Truthfully? And the scientist critic believes that what he said was true? And gave a plausible explanation of the cause? What falsehoods did Chris De Burgh communicate? I don't see that he made any claim to have healed the underlying injury. Maybe he did in the greater context of his comments, but the comment above as quoted is perfectly OK.
The other criticisms seem correct to me, but this kind of reporting bugs me because it is does not seem to me to be fair or cogent.
OUTFOXED. If you haven't seen it, do. You might not agree 100% and the bias may not invalidate *everything* they have to say, but its an interesting foray into the world and power of one of America's most influential (non-governmental) organizations.
Quack, quack.
That's where he gets most of his mis-information, particularly about psychology. He makes it sound like real science because that's how L.Ron Hubbard spoke and wrote.
Don't ask me how I know, I just do.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein