Scienctific sources vs. Celebrity endorsement

[TZ]

I would really like to know when celebrities like Oprah, Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey, RFK,jr, etc became experts in biology, chemistry and all other sciences.
We all condemn the RW for taking people like business executives, evangelists, and other frauds for scientific "experts".
So WHY is it OKAY to take Hollywood celebrities as experts on such complex issues as vaccination, autism, genetics, and biology in general. Seriously. Do you really think someone like Tommy Thompson and GWB are experts on stem cell research! Is Pat Robertson the "expert" on evolution?
Enough is enough with this celebrity as scientific authority JUNK!! BTW, ROLLING STONE IS NOT A PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL.
Reading on the internets (which is what these celebs has done to "educate" themselves), is NO SUBSTITUTION FOR REAL SCIENCE EDUCATION. Nor is the MSM!! They are about as scientific literate as a playboy playmate.
God, sometimes this site really shows how poorly science, math and critical thinking is taught in this country!
:rant:

[Dr. Strange]

1. When I was younger...

I was something of an expert in Jenny McCarthy's biology. Does that count?

O8)

[annabanana]

2. Which scientific theory is Rolling Stone holding forth on?

(curious)

[cloudbase]

3. You are correct.

Everybody should be held to the same standard(s).

[annabanana]

4. Which celebrity is substituting his or her opinion for scientific research?

Don't most of them advocate for INCREASED scientific inquiry?

[Dr. Strange]

6. From this article.

We believe autism is an environmental illness. Vaccines are not the only environmental trigger, but we do think they play a major role.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/02/mccarthy.autsimtreatment/index.html

[annabanana]

8. It is understandable that suffering parents will cleave to

anecdotal evidence and "apparent" healing. This is not the same as a celebrity "adopting" a disease and raising funds for research.

[NashVegas]

5. Oh, Please

1. RFK Jr has had his money where his mouth is since before it was presently fashionable.

2. As much as I loathe RS, they are well known for having certain clues when it comes to non-music reporting.

3. Non-scientists don't read peer-reviewed sci journals because sci-journals are written for people with a specific vocabulary and working methods most people don't have.

4. Celebs get to be celebs in part because they can relay information in ways the average joe can understand and relate to.

5. Enough freaking elitism. Did you watch TDS Tuesday night? Jon had a bonafide scientist on - and the guy was a snobbish asshole whose disdain for "average thinkers" was highly visible.

[Birthmark]

9. Elitism? So what?

Scientific knowledge isn't a freaking popularity contest.

[alarimer]

11. But here they are relaying INCORRECT information.

Just as dangerous or maybe more dangerous than if they simply said "I don't know".

The elitism charge is just a smokescreen for an unwillingness to tell it like it is. Some people ARE smarter than others but celebrities, just because they are famous, are not smarter than others. Mostly they are dumber and certainly less-informed. Many performers (I think Jim Carrey may be one) are high-school dropouts. Hardly a reason to believe what they say. People are, by and large, scientifically illiterate in this country. But they are not stupid- it is education's fault.

[NashVegas]

16. What Incorrect Information?

It would be helpful to include that, ya know?

No one ever said celebrities were brilliant at anything other than the gifts they have, but those gifts are why charities are always begging celebs to be their spokespeople.

But they are not stupid- it is education's fault.

Nah. Look. Most people are more interested in how to make things go than they are in how things work. And for that, most things don't require calculus and genomes.

[Birthmark]

7. You are absolutely correct.

It's one thing when someone like Al Gore is educating on what science says.

It's quite another when some jugheaded celebrity endorses some whacko theory with little to no science behind it.

And it's outrageous when they expound some craziness that's directly contrary to the findings of science.

[alarimer]

10. We are on the same page here.

Those people know nothing and their opinion should carry NO weight but we have a celebrity fixation in this country AND a complete and utter lack of critical thinking skills in the general populace. The American people have an alarming predisposition to believing every little bit of woo-woo bullshit that comes down the pike.

They will buy anything, from the vaccine-autism link to "Iraq caused 9/11" (not to mention the numerous conspiracy theories completely void of ALL evidence surrounding that and other events).

It's a losing battle, I'm afraid.

I've also found that progressive does not always mean smart. Or at least scientifically literate. For that I blame the schools. I really do. Science education (especially in high school and below) is DEPLORABLE. Most science teachers do not have degrees in science. Instead they have bullshit "education" degrees.

[KharmaTrain]

12. Celebrities = Attention Getters

Special causes and charities seek out celebrities for one big reason...PR. Having an Ophra as your spokesperson gets your cause a lot of eyes and ears that one hopes means greater awareness to the cause. While many are critical, Jerry Lewis used his celebrity to raise public awareness of Muscular Dystrophy and raised millions for reasearch. Others, like Bono and Bob Geldoff have championed important causes by using that celebrity.

I applaud celebrities who do take the time to learn about their cause and firmly believe in it. I think a lot of good has been done by putting a famous face to an issue. The problem is when that face thinks that they are more important than the cause...or that their beneolence should be automatically equated into intelligence or ego.

Anyone can be an "expert"...at least when it comes to being a talking head. It's not uncommon for a cable show that needs to find an "expert" to make one up.

[lizerdbits]

14. Using celebrity status

for something like raising awareness or money for disease research is OK. Claiming to cure an incurable disease or condition, especially by selling your own books with treatments that haven't been supported by more than anecdotes, is not OK.

[lizerdbits]

13. An attractive person with lots of money told me

the earth is flat. So there! :P

[Lydia Leftcoast]

15. It is especially galling when people pride themselves on being so rational

and educated. I realize now that I received excellent training in what constitutes scientific proof and the difference between correlation and causation in my mediocre exurban high school and small Lutheran college in the 1960s and 1970s. Obviously a lot of people didn't learn these lessons. At least they didn't learn the difference between a hypothesis and a fact, or how epidemiological studies work.