I ask wondering if there is some science-wide consensus. It is a phrase one hears occasionally, someone stating that something is ‘scientifically proven’, when those in the field will readily admit that they do not wander around like some latter day Dr Faustus in Wittenberg claiming ‘Sic probo!’.
The question arose because of an advertisement on the television. A group of ladies were lunching and discussing their intestinal disorders, ‘bowel stuff’ and bloating. As a fellow sufferer, I watched with no little interest to see what might be the cure to their indisposition. I used to go and be doused in cold water, flogged with wet towels and have galvanically active chains hung around my shivering person, all therapies now supported by no a lesser personage that his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.
I wondered if they would advocate drinking more water, or including more roughage in their diet? A less sedentary lifestyle, or a visit to a general practitioner to establish whether their reduced ‘digestive transit’ (which does not mean a Ford van carrying biscuits) was symptomatic of a more serious malady.
It seems not. The answer was to eat a fermented milk product which contains good bacteria. Eaten regularly as part of a healthy balanced diet, the problems which these ladies* discussed so bright eyed would be alleviated. The advertisement finished with a brief appearance of a microscope – that unfailing symbol of scientific probity – and the endorsement that the product was ‘scientifically proven’. The small print reveals that the proof was astonishingly found by the company’s own scientists.
I take ‘scientifically proven’ to mean that the research has been submitted for peer review before this claim is made. Am I misled? Are the public? Is science misprepresented?
- I am sure that gentlemen also suffer from these problems, but I doubt they discuss them in such a wholesome manner over lunch and am sure that their repartee on the subject would do the brand in question no credit.
Auntie Beeb recently reported on the accuracy of similar claims from the beauty/health/food/advertising industries.
Briefly, a crack team of youthful scientists explored the actual science some of the typical claims of “detoxifying” products, highlighting that lack of a standard definition of what “detox” is hampers any rigourous interpretation, but there seems little conclusive evidence of the power of “good” bacteria or likewise to be of any more use than a refreshing scour with an abrasive loofah.
I think anyone who says something is “scientifically proven” can be automatically assumed to be selling something. Science proves nothing, ever – it may strongly support something, suggest relationships or causality, and even be ‘convincing’, but it can’t prove it. I’ve never heard a scientist say something has been proved by science. Unfortunate undergrads who write that word in a lab report get stiffly rebuked by their professor. I think the closest to “scientifically proven” in science is “scientific consensus”.
But, in the case of infomercials and drug companies, it probably means one test (of the many they did but didn’t publish) found their drug of choice had some sort of slightly positive effect, and some journal (not necessarily of reputable quality) published it.
Christie, sorry to be a pedant, but Maths (as a science) often relies on proof. And provides them, within a commonly accepted framework. But I agree with much of your point, and don’t remember the last time I saw a shampoo advert that claimed to mathematically prove it could make my hair thicker and glossier.
Ahh, but what of the frequent resort to that trusty rhetorical device – the percentage? x% more volume; x% longer lashes; x% less, er, flatulence? (How do they score that?)
‘less, er, flatulence?’
Lee I must confess to have missed the advert which made that promise. Perhaps I had overdone the sherry and nodded off. I have seen many promising low fat products, but never a low fart one. What a difference an ‘r’ makes.
Dear Sir, surely you have heard of beano?
Steffi I sit corrected, and astounded. Initially I thought you were suggesting that people might eat a comic book to suppress methanogenesis. Then it occurred to me that, in these modern times, some people can be persuaded to buy almost anything. The yoghurt product which promted this post being a case in point.
Is Beano ‘scientifically proven’ to have any effect? I would imagine first person testimonies are difficult to find for such a product.
I just found this…
I can’t resist being the first to say ‘fart diary’.
Steffi, why would readers of this blog want to know about a German travel diary?
My apologies, that link didn’t work.
There is another series of products that might be useful.
This topic opens up an old wound for me. I am the host of an alternative medicine debunking segment on an Australian science/medicine podcast, The Skeptic Zone. I have had several run-ins with the alt. med. crowd on this exact issue.
When visiting the most recent "Mind, Body, Wallet, (ehum, I mean Spirit) festival in Sydney, I can across a live blood analysis stall displaying a large poster, loudly proclaiming, “scientifically tested”. Upon asking the stall holder if they had evidence for this claim, they angrily snatched back the pamphlet they had previously given me, and demanded to know if I was from the “government” (the therapeutic goods administration to be precise).
I conduct a lot of research on the techniques of these crooks – I recently gave a talk and am in the process of preparing an accompanying manuscript, discussing the hijacking of scientific terminology and technology (you mentioned a “sciencey” looking microscope in the advertisement). It’s endemic I’m afraid.
From live blood analysis to hair analysis to detox, it drives me insane to think my hard work and they work of other scientists is being stolen by quacks who’s only aim is to make money and sometimes exploit sick, vulnerable people.
BTW their latest thing is quantum; energy, water, healing, crystals. You name it, they’ll add a scientific sounding name to it with the aim of lending legitimacy to their quackery. It’s shameful.
I blog about this stuff regularly if you care to take a look. You might be interested in the story of the supplement company who attempted to hijack Nobel Prize winning science on glycoproteins which prompted cease and desist notices from the scientists involved and an investigative article in “Science”. It’s jaw-dropping stuff. http://skepticzone.wordpress.com/2008/12/19/when-ignorance-is-not-bliss-and-alternative-medicine-just-won%E2%80%99t-quit/
Cheers
> scientifically proven
In the context of an advertisement, it’s puffery.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?sourceid=Mozilla-search&q=puffery+advertising+%22scientifically+proven%22
Thank you Mr Roberts. An acquiantance has asked the Advertising Standards Authority to consider the veracity of the claim.