Saturday, June 06, 2009

Is Oprah Winfrey A Crackpot?

The cover of June 8, 2009 issue of Newsweek shows the face of TV talk show host Oprah Winfrey with the headlines "Crazy Talk - Oprah, Wacky Cures, and You". A web version of the article can be found here. The article basically described all the weird and crazy cures, in addition to other mystic self-help advice that have occurred on Winfrey's talk show. Of course, the infamous "The Secret" gained its popularity on this show when she devoted a lot of time to it. I've already commented on the bogus physics that this thing claimed to be based on, so I won't go into it.

Still, the Newsweek article really skewered the talk show host for promoting such medically dubious cures, especially her promotion of the opinion of another "medical authority" Suzanne Somers.

I'm not going to bother to go into what has transpired. You can read it for yourself. However, I think it is safe to say that Winfrey (and many others) continue to reflect a very common characteristic of a large portion of the population. They do not understand the difference between anecdotal evidence, versus valid scientific evidence. They also are not aware of the existence of such differences, i.e. they do not know that something called "anecdotal evidence" exists, and why it isn't a solid or valid evidence. More often than not, they do not realize that correlation does not imply causation.

But such ignorance is to be expected when a talk show emphasize more on "feelings" and emotional content, rather than based on science and scientific evidence. Winfrey's book club is littered with novels exploring human emotions and well-being. You don't see books that have solid science in here book club selection. I'd die if I see her recommending Bob Park's "Voodoo Science" book, for example. Why? Because it requires a LOT of analytical thinking and requires her and her viewers to actually STUDY something carefully, rather than simply letting one's emotion and feelings take over as the major factor in reading a book. Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with books exploring such emotional feelings. But shouldn't there be a balance of opinion and exploration of human capability? At what point is the scientific and analytical ability of human beings get tested and challenged in her show? It's as if that part of a human being doesn't even exist.

So is Oprah Winfrey a crackpot? Well, some of her guests may be, but she's not a crackpot. She is just ignorant of basic science facts and scientific methodology, just like a large portion of the general public. Her mix of mystical, spiritual information with valid medical opinions is what most of the public often do. They support science, but also read their horoscopes. They understand the importance of science, but still believe in ghosts and other supernatural occurrences. And there's no sign that either Winfrey or the general public is going to change that any time soon.

Zz.

6 comments:

JC said...

Couldn't agree more.

Funny though - you mention the difference between correlation and causation, and the importance of recognising anecdotal evidence; yet you have links to anthropological global warming propaganda on your site.

What gives?

ZapperZ said...

I rely on experts in this area of study, and there is an overwhelming consensus of AGW. Look in the studies done by the American Physical Society (which NEVER sides with anything simply because it was politically correct to do so - see their stand on those missile defense shield).

Unless you to are an expert in this area and have done substantial research on your own, then how can you pick against such overwhelming consensus over those opposed to it? What factor allows you to know which one is more valid?

There's also another factor here. Consider the possiblity that each side could be wrong. If I side with AGW and they're wrong, what harm to the environment did we cause? If I side with anti-AGW and they're wrong, what harm to the environment did we cause? Which one would cause MORE harm to the way I live if they happen to be wrong?

Zz.

JC said...

"Consider the possiblity that each side could be wrong. If I side with AGW and they're wrong, what harm to the environment did we cause? If I side with anti-AGW and they're wrong, what harm to the environment did we cause?"

Interesting argument. That's Pascal's Wager, with AGW instead of God. Although I doubt we're going to waste billions trying to prevent the existence of god.

Also, I believe you're wrong about not harming the environment - we're illegally dumping millions of tonnes of iron sulphate into the ocean to try and lower atmospheric co2:
http://www.theecologist.org/pages/archive_detail.asp?content_id=2125

And whilst the world is focused on one single cause of damage to our environment, we're ignoring the myriad other ways in which we are actually destroying the planet.

ZapperZ said...

Er... that "dumping" part is not sanctioned by any official organization that endorses AGW. I know for a fact that this isn't one of the steps that the APS has listed to combat AGW. So I certainly have no desire to defend such an act, which in itself is based on highly dubious science.

Zz.

ZapperZ said...

BTW, your comment on how much it costs to prevent AGW, think again if anti-AGW is wrong. There are ample research done to show that it will cost even MORE if anti-AGW is wrong than if AGW is wrong.

See:

http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2007/03/statistical-analysis-debunks-climate.html

Zz.

ZapperZ said...

I really do NOT want this to get derailed again into a global warming debate. I've said more than enough on this already.

So it will end here.

Zz.