Pseudoscience and post truth

By Gonzalo López Martí – Creative director, etc / LMMiami.com

• Not too long ago I was scolded by an acquaintance of mine because, as an advertising professional, I supposedly “contribute to climate change”.

  By Gonzalo López Martí – Creative director, etc / LMMiami.com

• Not too long ago I was scolded by an acquaintance of mine because, as an advertising professional, I supposedly “contribute to climate change”.
• The accusation was two-pronged, to wit:
• I help companies sell wasteful products to people who don’t need and can’t afford them, therefore stacking up the landfills of the world with trash. And the oceans. And the atmosphere.
• I contribute to the constant cacophony of contradicting, confusing, misleading and overwhelming information about the environment and the state of our planet’s fauna and flora, therefore eroding the ability of science to amalgamate public opinion and solve our looming existential threats.
• The accusation was two-pronged, to wit:
• I help companies sell wasteful products to people who don’t need and can’t afford them, therefore stacking up the landfills of the world with trash. And the oceans. And the atmosphere.
• I contribute to the constant cacophony of contradicting, confusing, misleading and overwhelming information about the environment and the state of our planet’s fauna and flora, therefore eroding the ability of science to amalgamate public opinion and solve our looming existential threats.
• This dude’s premise somehow implied that the consuming & voting masses are either selfish, callous, petty, stupid, suicidal, gullible or terminally nearsighted.
• Possibly all of the above.
• Plus, his theory presupposes that science is some sort of infallible, sacred, pristine construct that simply cannot be disputed.
• Since when is science a monolithic body of undisputed unanimous knowledge?
• What is science exactly?
• Is science a synonym of truth?
• Are the articles on peer-reviewed publications some sort of gospel?*
• Can’t science be wrong every now and then?
• Isn’t science biased by public opinion, special interests or politics an awful lot of times?
• Science used to claim that bilingual kids are prone to having learning disabilities.
• Now, bilingualism is great for the brain and it even seems to combat Alzheimer’s disease.
• Science used to claim that coffee was carcinogenic.
• These days coffee seems to be a powerful antioxidant.
• Science used to claim that marijuana was a serious, mind-altering, life-threatening, addictive toxic.
• Nowadays, marijuana is “medicinal”.
• The list is endless.
• Let’s remember that the first dude who noticed that our now decaying planet orbits around the sun was burned at the stake.
• Interest groups big and small from all walks of life have been known to use piecemeal science to rationalize and confirm their own interests, agendas, shortcomings and inadequacies.
• Especially if someone can make money off it.
• Namely: big pharma, big oil, big pot, etc etc.
• Pseudoscience certainly exists and permeates every level of our culture, both in its well and bad-intentioned manifestations.
• Those California hipsters who refuse to vaccinate their kids love them dearly and truly believe they are protecting them.
• It is hard, if not impossible, to be the arbiter of what is good, bad or faux science.
• Don’t shoot me, I’m just the messenger.
• As you might know, I profess an anarcho-libertarian ideology.
• Live and let live.
• Always be suspicious of authority in its various manifestations.
• To be continued next week.

*I’ve been a juror for diverse advertising award shows and lemme tell you: peer-reviewed stuff can be plenty biased too. Sometimes with the best of intentions, along the lines of the good old Abilene paradox. But mostly for career advancement, ego, politics and ill-advised esprit de corps.