William Weed’s “106 Science Claims” is intended for typical Americans like us, people who watch television, use products from the supermarket, check their emails, surf the web, drive past billboard while listening to the radio, etc. Through his essay, Weeds attempts to persuade us that the “science” average Americans are fed each day is “not nutritious”, because as a nation, we are “easy prey” to pseudoscience due to education and the media. Weed’s argument is similar to Sagan’s in “Why We Need to Understand Science as they both argue that our perception of science is flawed and insufficient since our society causes us to believe that Pseudoscience is science. We are too trusting of the science we hear from the media and from our environments because companies are obligated to tell the truth but this isn’t always adhered to. Companies use scientific language we the consumers generally believe science is good for us.
Weeds presents his argument by connecting with the audience and providing a lot of examples, in addition to using tone and voice. He connects with the audience by welcoming us into his life and putting us in his position. He does this as he unravels the many science claims he hears on a typical day. For instance, he writes that at around 6 A.M, he’ll get his science claims at breakfast from his “cholesterol-reducing” Cheerios, milk derived from cows who “grazed freely on lush natural pastures as nature intended”, and a “fat-free” Concord Foods soy shake that is also a “good source of fresh fruit”. At 12 P.M., he’ll encounter his friend saying “They’re finding out alcohol is good for you”, a radio ad for eHarmony that promises to find a scientifically matched wife, and a billboard ad that reads “Is breast cancer’s most avoidable risk factor elective abortion?” His writing is not only welcoming but also very relatable since we are prone to see and hear many advertisements in our own lives. Weeds is also very direct and humorous in his persuasion. For instance, when he explains how the labeling of “Gluten-Free Yeast” is an obvious statement. He writes “Duh. Yeast is a fungus. Gluten is a product of plant protein. In evolutionary terms, yeast and gluten are as unrelated as a cow and an orange”.
Weed’s major claim that the daily dose of science given to us through radio, television, the Internet, product packaging, billboards and newspaper, mostly consists of claims that are deceiving, misleading, bogus, puffed up, oversold, lack significance, incomplete or potentially dangerous. For the most part, I agree with his argument because after reading Weed’s essay, I have realized how most of the products we come across and see or hear about, are advertised with scientific claims. And it’s more than likely that most of the claims are misrepresented. I think Weeds did a good job with providing evidence to support his argument as he provides and supports so many claims that he comes across. For each scientific claims he brings up, he provides a credible explanation for it’s erroneousness afterwards, some of his explanations against scientific claims are more persuasive then others. Much of his argument provides credible substantial evidence but I felt as though some of his argument was not as strong or was one-sided.
Today when I was going through the things on my desk, I discovered a Power Balance bracelet that I made my mom buy me back in 2010, when I was in high school. It was a fad that year. These bracelets had holograms on them and claimed to “use holographic technology” to “resonate with and respond to the natural energy field of the body”, and increase sporting ability. It turns out that this was what Weeds would call bogus. Studies have shown no difference between people wearing Power Balance wristbands and people wearing placebo ones. Power Balance ended up admitting that there is no credible scientific evidence that supports [their] claims. Another example would be the toothpaste I am using currently, which is Colgate’s Optic White, which claims that it’ll give you “Whiter Teeth in one week”. This I find very appealing. However, like the prescription drug Pletal, I think this product is oversold. I doubt that this toothpaste works for everyone. A third example of a science claim is are Sketcher’s shape ups which were supposed to help people lose weight, and strengthen and tone their buttocks, legs and abdominal muscles, but they weren’t backed by real scientific evidence.
Sources:
http://gizmodo.com/5723577/powerbalance-admits-their-wristbands-are-a-scam
WRT 102.22: Science & Society 
