Maybe, but I found them leaving a lot of stuff largely unchallenged very worrying. The response in the first episode to a guy saying that essential oils can definitely cure cancer was someone saying that cure is the wrong word but that they can treat things as well as meds
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @crackedscience
If you come to it with the mindset that this stuff needs to be condemned then of course it's going to seem inadequate. That view is emotional though, not evidence based. That ep used editing and contrast to show clearly the cancer claim was bullshit.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @engagedpractx @crackedscience
I don't really agree that they did. I think the positive claims of cure were given almost the entire episode and then there was a very brief examination of the issues with the claims then back to mostly happy anecdotes
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @crackedscience
Nah. In this conversation one of us has tertiary training in how media products are put together and interpreted by audiences. There are many ways of communicating doubt and it used them all. It was *scathing* of the original essential oils guy for killing his patients.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @engagedpractx @crackedscience
I just felt like a reasonable person watching that episode would come away with a totally understandable belief that essential oils can treat or even cure cancer
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @crackedscience
We're going around in circles here. That's a feeling, informed by your priors...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @engagedpractx @crackedscience
Maybe? I try to think about how other people would view it, but obviously I'm not perfect at that
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @crackedscience
The average punter doesn't come to this show parsing it for statements of fact that are directly contradicted or not. They're really sensitive to *social comparison.* Among all the people making claims, who comes across as sympathetic and reasonable in that episode?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @engagedpractx @crackedscience
I thought the woman who survived cancer and credited it to the oils very much so. The expert to a great degree as well, whose main message was that the oils work but are not a cure
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @crackedscience
Ok but the suburban mom who watches this show is *going to meet* cancer survivors who are either scammers or genuinely think it was the oils that tipped them over the top (not the chemo, radio, immuno, etc). Do you think it makes the show more credible not to show them?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Right, and the show spends pretty much 0 time addressing why those anecdotes might not be reliable and a long time uncritically representing them
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @crackedscience
You're constitutionally incapable of getting this.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.