I'm shocked to find myself defending the general public, but I do think that you are grossly overstating the issue. The American understanding of advertising is complex. Individual's reactions are not simply based on what they are told, especially in an advertisement. If this were true, you would find more consistency in the verbally communicated messages of advertisements. How many ads have you seen where the visual content and spoken dialog have had virtually nothing to do with the brand or product? How many ads have you seen that are self reflexive? The complexity of our advertising has been forced to evolve as Americans have become more savvy. While much of America seems unable to think critically with regards to a logical argument or seems to misunderstand how science is regulated, I still believe they can distinguish the scientific community from a TV endorsement.
The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)is a cognitive psychology theory used in advertising. It suggests that strong opinions are formed when when a person has both the desire and capacity to analyse information presented to them. Otherwise, a weak opinion is formed. Weak opinions are formed in a passive process and aren't necessarily conscious. I don't think medicine ads are being processed through in a manner that creates strong opinions about science. I would actually say that most of them are designed to discourage any logical thinking. Consider that nearly all of the imagery is about how great your life will be at the same time they are telling you about the possibility of death. The wiki on ELM is decent and it gives the cite for the original text if you choose to hunt it down ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaboration_likelihood_model). I would also like to address another potential difficulty in this argument; It is my belief that American perceptions of 'medical science' and of 'academic science' (for lack of a better term) are substantially different. If Americans trusted academic science as much as they do medical science, climate change would have been acted upon 20 years ago. If people are buying these products primarily because they are actively thinking about the scientific endorsements, then they should be taking academic science more seriously. But, since most people who buy these products are uncertain about academic science, it would seem to either support my suggestion that the are two 'sciences' in this case or support the formation of a weak opinion in accordance with ELM. (There are also many other theories to help interpret what you and I have described. I am merely offering one.) Your argument, as I understand it, would also be considered 'slippery slope' fallacy because assume that disbelief in science in one specific instance leads to a greater disbelief in science as a whole. We have also both done our readers a great disservice by not carefully defining terms. 'People' and 'Americans' are not words that have fixed meanings in a national or perhaps even international discussion. And by failing to define them we have also failed to make a vital connection: Are people who are persuaded by medical advertising also people who doubt the credibility of science? I think what you have brought up is incredibly important to the future of science. The scientific community should be deeply concerned about how it is represented in popular media. How the scientific community balances rhetorical delivery and information in its communication is something that warrants extensive discussion. -Hanno On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 5:11 PM, malcolm McCallum < malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org> wrote: > At what point does the scientific community realize that the current > surge in patent medicines and nonsense medical devices are seriously > eroding the nation's confidence in science? > This is not directly related to ecology, but ecology is science and if > people misuse science to sell products that are medically irrelevant > it certainly must affect all science. > > For example, if the average person sees a supposed physician on TV > parading products that "absorb fat out of your body" or send "magnetic > impulses into your joints" or provide the "healing effects of light", > he/she does not necessarily recognize the difference between > commercial claims and scientific ones. Further, if that person is > suckered in to buy this sucker bait, he/she is certain to find, once > any placebo affect passes, that it is shear snake oil. Consequently, > these folks see these advertisements with supposed nutritionists, > phds, MDs, etc. and learn not to believe what they say. Along comes a > scientist claiming extraordinary changes such as climate change, ozone > layer issues, problems with pollution, and endangered species...on TV, > even in commercials. Why should they believe them? It looks and > smells just like that snake oil aunt Martha bought off TV that did > nothing but moisten her skin. > > Does anyone else see that a deeper problem exists here? These > products are much more harmful that simply misleading people, they are > more than simply false advertising, they really should not be allowed > to make the extraordinary claims that they do. Some of the products > are harmless, some are dangerous simply in the fact that folks choose > to depend on these prior to seeking real medical advice, but all have > a serious potential to erode the general public's view of the > scientific community. > > -- > Malcolm L. McCallum > Associate Professor of Biology > Managing Editor, > Herpetological Conservation and Biology > Texas A&M University-Texarkana > Fall Teaching Schedule: > Vertebrate Biology - TR 10-11:40; General Ecology - MW 1-2:40pm; > Forensic Science - W 6-9:40pm > Office Hourse- TBA > > 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert > 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, > and pollution. > 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction > MAY help restore populations. > 2022: Soylent Green is People! > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may > contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not > the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and > destroy all copies of the original message. >
