Despite the efforts of the astrophysicist and advocate for Science publicity, Carl Sagan, the society of the United States has taken a dive off the deep end into pseudoscience in not just occasional discussions regarding the unknown of outer space, but rather resonating constantly in front of the public eye on a daily basis. The transition from the previous stage to the latter has been directly related to the efforts of hundreds of companies edging-on consumers with the “benefits” of their products like waving a bone in front of a dog – yet with no evidence to support such attractions. The usual assumption of the scenario would be that a group of elite salesmen, who are working on a giant plan to rip off the public (in layman’s terms) would be behind the grand scheme of things. Yet, ironically, not just one particular group of business men and woman have been successful with deterring consumers from buying rival products. Instead, people from a range of occupations try to use ethos or the credibility of their position to gain the public’s trust in hopes that they will adhere to relatively unusual concepts or products. In a similar manner, William Weed uses this method as well as a mixture of sarcasm, humor, analogies, and most importantly researched evidence to address the lack of faith the American people should have if they continue to play “benefactor” to the government, and furthermore, industrialized occupations.
The nation has become an easy prey for the pseudo-scientific world that is plaguing our lives. Though the majority of claims from advertisers are seen as the daily dose of science that everyone needs as they go on with their day, they are actually filled with either lies, or irrelevant statements in regards to the actual benefits of the product. Companies have a “marketing imperative” which encourages them to twist information this way and that to make the product seem most appealing to the customer as they try to improve sales. Using the FDA’s disclaimers made this entirely possible as even a team of college drop- outs could successfully sell a product as long as they had the disclaimer somewhere in their ad. Luckily, the distinguished author Weed gives his audience a means to escape the endless sea of pseudo-waves through his article 106 Claims and a Truck Full of Bologna.
106 claims… was presented in “Popular Science,” a particular magazine that usually attracts those who are intrigued by keeping up with those who hold important positions in the scientific world. From the general audience who subscribe to the magazine, it is safe to assume that Weed had directed his objections toward the specific partition of America that would be concerned about these findings. With the declared notion that “Advertisers probably feed more science to Americans than anyone else,” Weed uses his article to attain a method which allows the public to realize the ignorance of their position in society, and furthermore, the danger it poses to their lives and their pockets. To appeal to the audience’s position in this unfortunate scenario, Weed simulated the interactions that his readers might go through as they continue with their daily routine –numb to the abuse from industries as they wreak havoc on society. The implication that he himself is being bombarded with claim after claim as the hours pass by becomes rather logical when considering the ways in which Weed pursues the explanations of each claim and its matching counterclaim. The structure of the article, similar to a journal, allows him to emphasize how many things that, if questioned, would constitute as another claim to pseudoscience on a daily basis. Yet, instead of leaving it up to the reader to form some interpretation of the information provided, he takes time after every fifth or sixth point that he has summed up from the 106 found to further reveal what is actually being hidden from the public eye.
The informal diction utilized to present his objections also set the tone for a casual conversation between writer and reader-where one could make snide comments about the information in a blunt manner and not feel judged for having the same thoughts as those expressed in the article. In a sense, this enables the audience a taste of freedom in comparison to the constant dread of chains that appear when the media pressures one to conclude a certain attitude about a particular food ingredient, service, or source of advice. A sub-partition of this method happened to also include the avid use of sarcasm plainly seen in various parts of the text. For example, the first claim that proposes the benefits of consuming the general mills cereal, “Cheerios,” seems to use the possibility of the product decreasing risks of heart disease in a large number of its attracted fan base. This statement could be grouped as suspicious because it was stated during a press release, as opposed to actually allowing the public to see the results concluded from the study where it declared that cholesterol would lower by only four percent. Therefore, Weed’s sarcasm doesn’t necessarily regard the product but rather the motives behind general mills as a company. Even after computing the numbers if every American followed the recommended advice from the company, it would be difficult to persist with the idea of this animated “bee” character who sincerely cares about the consumer’s health when they are raking in a gross product from the 204 billion of bowls of cereal being eaten. Hence, one of Weed’s classifications (“Fair enough. Good for sales.”) could not be more true as “Cheerios” has been proven to be healthy – healthy for the corporation producing it.
Throughout other claims that are relevant to the health benefits received from products, the FDA, or food and drug administration, have played a leading part in the amount of trickery endured. Due to the regulations of having to place a truthful statement on items being sold, those declarations proposed could indeed follow such a guideline, and yet not be relevant to the product at all(a.k.a. the business loop hole). To tie in his humor with this surprising idea, Weed mentions the ole’ famous “gluten-free yeast” that is seen commonly in grocery stores. Using a product that is so widely purchased as an example would eventually gage a reaction from his readers that seems fit for probably the majority of claims that they’ve played witness to. As the country began embarking on a “gluten- free high”, the background of popularity for this product hit the ceiling. One has to keep in mind the “kairos,” or setting, of this situation and its effects as products with the label who identified themselves as “gluten-free” sold quickly to a large number of families. As a business who has an imperative to increase sales by any means necessary, it is understandable why they would see it fit to make sure their products saw the same growth in sales as the competition. What most families failed to realize is that the fact that yeast was gluten free had nothing to do with the healthful benefits of yeast as an ingredient. In the words of the author, “yeast and gluten are as unrelated as a cow and an orange,” and he could not be more right considering yeast is a fungus. This is simply another way in which businesses have abused publicity to take advantage of the lack of actual science the public knows.
In other scenarios, Weed references claims that describe the services which also use partial deception in its appeal to the public. A major example of this is demonstrated through the claim regarding the online dating site, “eHarmony.” Existing as a very widely known resource for people who hope to find their “one true love,” the site has gained quite a bit of credibility due to the number of relationships that have come to be as a result of the staff’s match – making abilities. Why then did Weed choose this specific claim out of the many? One word: unlikelihood. He wanted to portray that even in the most unlikely places, pseudoscience has become the root of progress for businesses. To prove his counterclaim, the reliable resource of a Stony Brook social psychology professor was admitted to the crime scene to analyze how exact eHarmony’s “love – algorithm” was, if they truly had match-making down to a science. The results entailed that this algorithm only based a couple’s chemistry on topics that guaranteed compatibility, but most likely would not lead to a lasting marriage for the two love birds.
As the article progressed, Weed made it quite clear that despite the task at hand, the general public would be subject to these messages every few minutes, despite the lack of validity seen throughout each proposal as well as the public’s unwillingness to listen (leads to subliminal messaging). With the structure as well as a determination to persuade his readers to listen and understand more deeply, it seems as though he takes the place of the various industrial corporations by sharing what should be shared about their products, such as the risks and concerns one should have. A prime example of this occurred when Weed had mentioned a claim referring to alcohol and the possibility of how beneficial it could be. To gain the reader’s trust, he described a study performed with 90,000 male physician participants who helped confirm the hypothesis that drinking one glass a day could in fact aid people with prolonging their lives. With perfect timing in his grasp, Weed had provided himself with leeway to mention the side effects of overdosing on this recommended occasional pick-me-up as the reader most likely held weight to his words. He, or she, may also be emotionally effected by the statement he made within this explanation as the topic of repercussions emerged. It seems that Weed actually pertained to the “pathos” aspect of his writing as a large number of readers could have known someone close to them who have been affected by this incomplete information that is being provided by many members of the FDA.
Web MD on the other hand contributes both sides, like Weed, to the discussion on alcohol consumption, yet it has found its own way of abusing the trust of many anonymous patients. As a result of the controversy over when to begin screening for breast cancer, for example, quite a few doctors disagree with the final claim that people should start around the age of 40 ( depending on family records) as a precaution for one’s health. Instead, they recommend the idea of postponing till about a decade later for such tests. To further research these discrepancies between professional doctors in hopes to find some logic behind this decision seems almost pointless when it is evident in the profits doctors make from this. Considering a certain amount is due according to the co-pay, plus the amount charged for however many screenings one may have, it would be detrimental to their own pay if such a claim was not declared for all of society to hear. Similar to the “Cheerios” situation, this is more convenient for the workers than for the patients themselves.
Although declaring all the ways we’ve been tricked by the false advertising, Weed doesn’t leave his readers with a problem that they couldn’t possibly fix. He instead makes a point of how they could benefit from having an attitude similar to one that was used as an example in his article. “Oddly, the Imus joke about the Chinese astronaut embodied the sort of attitude Americans could profit from in a world of promiscuous science claims. His “How do we know?” is a demand for fundamental evidence.” This is a particular section which allows Weed to depict how the public should respond to the supposedly scientifically -proven claims that are seen by the hundreds every day by pedestrians and web –browsers. The wording in the first sentence seems to direct the attitude of the reader as they have already pre-ascribed notions of what “promiscuous” can mean in the eyes of the media. When found in a thesaurus, its’ synonyms can alternate from “loose” to “immoral” -something one would usually like to avoid in fear of embarrassment as well as defending ones morality. Thus, to relate the facts that companies are declaring to this word would instantly shift the tone of the essay to show not only how false these claims could be, but also how much we should avoid listening to them. Though seen as unusual, Weed encourages the questioning emphasized in this reference. It’s a display of how simple it could be to avoid being the victim of such atrocities as the “3-inches longer” pitch, or the possibility of coconut oil(which is filled with saturated fat) being healthy for you.
WRT 102.22: Science & Society 