Hanno you bring up a very intriguing point about the distinction between
what people trust in the medical science community versus the academic
science community. I had never put that together but I think you're right
on. I get dismayed at how trusting people are of their doctors, and how
doctors treat people as if their responses will be on a "bell curve" rather
than treating them holistically (one blatant example is with birth - if
patients do not proceed according to the timetable, they give pitocin to
speed the birth, which almost inevitably leads to a cesarean). And of course
most pregnant women just follow along, fearful of a negative outcome, while
the doctors more concerned about getting home to watch the football game,
and/or malpractice. This is of course an oversimplification but it happens.
But the distinction with the general public's acceptance of academic science
- something to think about. And that phenomenon may well be different in the
US than elsewhere. There was a study I saw about how the US is an outlier
in terms of religious belief and poverty. Most highly religious nations are
higher in poverty. We're one of the few that are a first world nation with a
high degree of religiosity. And I believe that the rejection of academic
science is a direct result of that religiosity because it is the
religio-political conservatives that reject climate change and evolution.
There are active Christian ministries opposing those two major issues -
including the well known Focus on the Family (James Dobsons organization).
And I myself am a Christian, but a progressive one who accepts science,
evolution etc and in fact am writing a book (due out Fall 2010) on making
peace between evolution and Christianity.
Also Malcolm I wanted to make a response to one point. While most of the
things being touted as medical solutions are bunk, some are not. There are
certainly some things like Echinacea perhaps, and other natural medicines
that DO make a difference but the research has not been done.
Wendee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wendee Holtcamp, M.S. Wildlife Ecology ~ @bohemianone
Freelance Writer * Photographer * Bohemian
http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com
http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com
~~6-wk Online Writing Course Starts Feb 6, 2010 (signup by Jan 30)~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Im Animal Planets news blogger - http://blogs.discovery.com/animal_news
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Hanno Murphy
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 8:31 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all
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.
>
