Martin Gardner on Oprah Winfrey: Bright (but Gullible) Billionaire | Hacker News Reader

Martin Gardner on Oprah Winfrey: Bright (but Gullible) Billionaire

csicop.org

39 pointsgarret11 comments

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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).

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.

Jenny McCarthy Body Count?

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.

She's a very prolific crackpot, nobody that promotes so many different ideas would be likely to be uniformly bad.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com