

Martin Gardner on Oprah Winfrey: Bright (but Gullible) Billionaire - garret
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/oprah_winfrey_bright_but_gullible_billionaire/

======
Alex63
Wouldn't it be interesting if celebrities could be sued for malpractice, as
doctors can be? Oprah just seems to be a particularly noteworthy example of
celebrities who encourage stupidity whether in medicine and science, or
politics and economics.

~~~
kenjackson
With doctors and lawyers, you put your trust in them that they know their
field. With celebrities, they have no field of expertise (necessarily),
besides being a celebrity.

It's the same reason you can't win a lawsuit against your neighbor for giving
you bad medical advice, regardless of how smart you think he is.

~~~
Alex63
Understood. My real point was that until there is an economic disincentive,
celebrities will continue to encourage other people to do stupid things. For
doctors/lawyers, that disincentive is a malpractice suit. You are perfectly
correct that there are no grounds for suing a celebrity, particularly since
there is no contract. Unfortunately, mass media give celebrities a much better
platform for disseminating stupidity than your neighbor.

In the real world, it seems like there are only two solutions: better
education so that more people can distinguish bunk, and some kind of public
humiliation for fatuous celebrities with stupid ideas (the Jenny McCarthy Body
Count, noted elsewhere on HN, might be a step in the right direction).

~~~
jerf
For better or for worse, they have free speech too. The laws necessary to undo
that would do more harm than good.

~~~
Alex63
I'm certainly not arguing against free speech (I think if you read my earlier
posts you will see that I did not suggest that), which is why I suggested that
an economic disincentive was probably the only effective way to stop this kind
of behavior.

Since you bring up the question of free speech, however, let's consider that
angle. Does the right to free speech give you the right to shout "fire!" in a
crowded movie theatre? Or to perjure yourself? No, and presumably the reason
is because such speech reflects a malicious intent to cause harm to others. I
don't suppose for an instant that Oprah has such a malicious intent, but I
think most HN readers would agree that by giving celebrities and quacks a
platform from which to spread their stupidity, she does cause harm to others.

In _The Ethics of Belief_ , W. K. Clifford said "It is wrong always,
everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."
If you accept Clifford's reasoning (as I do), then I think we must agree that
Oprah is wrong to believe as she does, and further compounds that error by
spreading her beliefs widely. While it is not illegal to be wrong, I don't
think it would be a huge stretch to suggest that persons spreading beliefs
that they have no right to believe (per Clifford) are culpable at some level
for the resulting harm. As far as I know, the fact that the speaker honestly
believes what they are saying is no defense in cases of libel, slander or hate
speech.

My view is that Oprah has a duty to question her beliefs, and seek out
evidence that refutes them. If she chooses not to do so, she is still entitled
to hold those beliefs privately, but not to encourage them in others.

~~~
kenjackson
Who's to say her ideas are wrong? In fact, what if you're ideas here are
wrong? Should you be culpable for trying to convince us? Who determines if her
ideas are wrong or right? I've heard evidence that in the majority of
published math papers there's at least one major flaw in a proof of each
paper. Are they now culpable, as are the publishers?

Effectively what you're arguing is that everyone should refrain from making
any statement (opinion or fact) unless they're stating something that is
universally agreed by some body. It sounds like you're describing is the
church of days past.

I much rather live in a world/country were people are free to say what they
like, and I'm free to believe it or not -- with only certain rare exceptions
(for example judges, in their capacity as a judge, shouldn't lie).

~~~
Alex63
I'm quite ready to say that promoting abstention from vaccination because it
causes autism is wrong. There is no scientific evidence for such a claim. And,
if you read _The Ethics of Belief_ , you will find that my view is completely
at odds with the position of the church - I do not recognize "faith" as a
legitimate basis for believing something.

I'm not really sure where you are going with a statement like "Who's to say
her ideas are wrong?". It sounds like moral relativism, but I don't want to
assume that is what you intended unless you explicitly say so. I assume you
agree that people can have ideas that are wrong (e.g., 2+2=5, "the world is
flat", etc.), and that other people are justified in pointing out that those
ideas are wrong. If my assumption is correct, then you are either saying that
these particular ideas are not wrong, or you are saying they are wrong but
that Jenny McCarthy and Oprah should not be held culpable for promoting them.
I'll assume the latter.

To be clear, I am _not_ saying people should refrain from making any statement
unless it is universally agreed upon. I'm saying that before believing
something (and trying to spread that belief to others), we have a duty to
investigate our beliefs and subject them scientific scrutiny. Failure to
discharge that duty injures society. Given the lack of scientific evidence of
a link between vaccination and autism, one must conclude that Jenny McCarthy
(and by extension, Oprah) has either failed to subject her beliefs to such
scrutiny, or willfully ignores evidence to the contrary. In my opinion, this
does constitute _some_ degree of culpability.

------
Legion
Very interesting. I am not an Oprah viewer, but even my limited exposure has
left me with a "two Oprahs" impression: one a force of good, and one who
provided a platform for pure crap like "Dr." Phil.

I was not aware Jenny McCarthy and a whole mess of new age junk were also a
part of Second Oprah's repertoire. How disappointing for a woman whose
achievements would otherwise merit heaps of praise and respect.

~~~
billswift
She's a very _prolific_ crackpot, nobody that promotes so many _different_
ideas would be likely to be uniformly bad.

------
korch
Doesn't the FDA regulate the specific words that can be legally allowed to
describe the stated effects of any medical treatment? Which is why all of the
non-regulated pseudo-science drugs have to use generic terms like "you'll feel
better, have more energy and be more successful."

If Oprah pitches one of these products, she's a paid spokesman for it, so
wouldn't drug laws trump free speech here? i.e. Business are not allowed to
flaunt the laws and claim they have free speech, but individuals of course are
given far more leeway.

