
Is Gwyneth Paltrow’s pseudoscience winning? - abhi3
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/7/19/15988180/gwyneth-paltrow-goop-jade-egg-debunkers
======
oseph
Most humans are dumb and fall for snake oil. It's a greasy way to make money,
but it's not really surprising in this day and age of "facts."

~~~
kazinator
Moreover, some are actively anti-intellectual, and will take a science
researcher's nay-saying as proof that the bullshit is true.

------
Mz
I think I finally see where I went wrong:

Instead of actually getting myself well and trying to figure out how to share
info on that, I should have just become a celebrity movie star first. Then I
could be raking in the dough instead of being poor and ignored and
occasionally pissed on for the assumption that what I am doing is anything
like this.

~~~
pc86
Ah yes, you should have "just become a celebrity." That would have solved
everything.

------
CM30
Is it winning? Eh, probably not really. Remember, pseudoscience and quackery
has been popular for pretty much all of human history, and like with this its
often been promoted by celebrities and other influencers.

A lot of this stuff has become popular over the years, from Intelligent Design
to faith healing and homeopathy and those weird mystical bracelets people were
advertising about ten years ago.

Yet it never won. It never became the 'common' consensus on a topic, or
something the mainstream believed in, or that the scientific establishment
promoted. It became popular with a moderately large but still somewhat niche
audience.

And that's the case here too. This 'Goop' thing couldn't truly win, because
truly winning would mean people would generally take it seriously. No example
of pseudoscientific nonsense has ever really won in that sense.

------
jenkstom
This points out the subjective failures of science, IMO. Just because there's
no evidence for something doesn't mean it won't make you happy. Obviously if
there are health issues it should be addressed, but this seems to be more
motivated by a personal vendetta than science.

If something makes you happy and improves your quality of life, why not do it
as long as the positives outweigh the negatives? You could argue that the
products are all psychological if you want, and that doesn't make them any
less useful. Possibly more so.

Science is about reducing uncertainty. It is not about suppressing hobbies
that seem offensive or weird.

------
NTDF9
Apologies for my foul language but Americans are uneducated as fuck! This is
why crap sells so well only in America.

Before someone goes off about best schools, best companies, best other things,
do remember that these "bests" are not available to the masses in America.

The anti-science, anti-schooling, anti-intellectualism is rampant across the
nation, resulting in articles such as this!

Celebrities are revered more than Scientists, Business is revered more than
environment.

~~~
solipsism
Oh please. There's no where that's immune to pseudoscience.

~~~
std_throwaway
This statement is both correct and useless. It deflects but does not add depth
or insight to the discussion.

