Respectful Insolence

Great post! Thanks for mustering the energy to return to the blog so quickly. BTW if I could have afforded to go to TAM, I would have had you on my "must meet and get picture/autograph" list.

Cheers

Posted by: TGAP Dad | July 14, 2009 4:47 PM

These guys are rapidly turning into the best skeptical entertainment on the net!

Posted by: Grendel | July 14, 2009 7:00 PM

Mitchell is a frequent guest on Stephen Fry's QI as well. You might want to check it out. It's a funny show where many of the show panellists are outspoken sceptics.

Posted by: Magnus | July 14, 2009 8:21 PM

I've often wondered what tiny percent (if any) of the many people I've met who say they're allergic to wheat and/or dairy (many of them of standard Indo-European stock - i.e., thousands of years of wheat farming and dairy animal product consumption have gone into the development of their gene pools) have actually been tested by a real doctor with actual training in nutrition. Most likely they've been persuaded instead by the sorts depicted here - or simply self-diagnosed, encouraged by something they read.

Posted by: Prod to be a Merkin | July 14, 2009 10:28 PM

I'm ashamed to say that, due to time constraints, I've missed almost all of That Mitchell and Webb Look on TV, despite loving That Mitchell and Webb Sound, the radio precursor. That had an awesome series of sketches culminating with Lions In Snooker.
David M also has a radio show The Awful Truth that's well worth chasing down.

Posted by: eddie | July 15, 2009 12:08 AM

Eddie, it's "The Unbelievable Truth". http://www.spannerwercs.co.uk/unbelievable_truth/index.htm

Posted by: Steve Page | July 15, 2009 5:55 AM

They missed one big bet.

"She wants to get her nutrition from eating fruits and vegetables!"
"What, does she think humans evolved without taking supplements or something? Nutrition can only be obtained from the pills we sell - at a large profit, let us remember."

Posted by: Scott | July 15, 2009 9:21 AM

DebinOz-

This is true.

Medics get the whole alt-med shebang to cope with.

Geologists get the whole creationist thingie.

Physicists get the use of the word 'quantum' before absolutely everything.

Chemists seem fairly lucky, homeopathy aside. Oh, and cosmetics adverts to cope with.

Botanists.. yes, thanks for pointing that out, I think we are going to have to invent a whole new insane belief system just to annoy you..

Posted by: Andrew Dodds | July 15, 2009 10:34 AM

I guess the point is, how do we, as real sciency-types, reclaim our science from the woo-meisters?

I'm partial to chainsaws and dynamite, myself, but society tends to frown on such measures.

Posted by: Ranson | July 15, 2009 11:28 AM

Wow, the new season (pardon, series) of Mitchell and Webb is showing up all over the place in different clips on all my favorite blogs, each one perfectly skewering something that greatly deserves it. Anyone seen any rumors anywhere about when it will show up on BBC America, or any other american network? The web site doesn't have any info, and nothing on a quick google.

Don't remember how we got into it, must've been a promo during Graham Norton, but it was a damn funny show, even when the highlight of the show for us was just Numberwang.

Oh, and speaking as a chemist, it's not just the homeopathy and cosmetics ads that make me cringe, but the way things are advertised as being "all natural - chemical free!" is a pretty big teeth gnasher. Granted, it now seems to present itself as more "without harsh chemicals" which I guess is at least theoretically possible, though makes me wonder what would be the point of cleaning with chemicals that AREN'T "harsh". Am I supposed to tickle the mildew out off the shower walls? But, of course, it still leaves the impression that all chemicals are "harsh" - ok, rant mode in full swing, what on earth does that mean? Must have missed that week - I mean, spend a month going over all the different types of acid/base pairs, didn't leave a lot of time for harsh/perfectly natural pairs. Though, you would think they would have made time at some point, ok, maybe not in general HS chemistry, but certainly in AP, and then it should have shown up at least one of the elective courses in college and/or grad school. And, um, since everything is made of chemicals, that would imply that there are some that are not "harsh" - what are those called? Chemists love their naming pair conventions, can't think of any category that has a name that doesn't have a name for things that are not in that category.

That being said, I'm ok with the use of the word organic, even though from what I understand, the word isn't quite as specific in advertising use as in the chemistry textbooks, and has great variation between certifying agencies. Though, I wonder, would calling a product "chemically organic" fly, since you would clearly be referring to the carbon-containing meaning?

Though, anything to do with all the wonderful benefits of "negative ions," since it's generally impossible to create one w/o also creating a positive ion. And, if you do manage to surround yourself with enough negative ions to have any major perceived benefit, wouldn't that just turn you into a giant positive-ion magnet?

Posted by: Djinna | July 15, 2009 11:18 PM

delurking late to say: as a realsie-trusie diagnosed celiac, I benefit from the increase in "gluten intolerance", as it's greatly expanded the foods I can buy and the places I can eat out... Sometimes I feel a little dirty, but then I have something that's real food and I get over it.

Posted by: Ab_Normal | July 17, 2009 3:26 PM

Apparently there are a lot of folks here who are too busy being skeptics to actually read any medical research such as this article stating that undiagnosed celiac disease is on the rise. . . of course the study was conducted by those quacks over at the Mayo Clinic. . not that anybody would take THEM seriously. . . '

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/156401.php

Posted by: Dr. Matt | July 19, 2009 10:47 PM

Yeah, I took this a little personal. I was diagnosed with Celiac disease by a gastroenterologist, using the proper tests. Unfortunately, it took many years to even be considered as a diagnosis. I think a little more public awareness is a good thing.

Of course, the quacks should still be corralled, but you could at least mention that there are real (peer-reviewed, bona fide) conditions that result from gluten sensitivity, instead of leaving it to the comments.

Well, it's comedy. The purpose is primarily to entertain, not to present a balanced argument.

I don't think M&W were poking fun at your condition as much as the quack tendency to oversimplify and use catch-all explanations.

Posted by: Joseph C. | August 3, 2009 9:20 PM