another Dr Oz story in the papers

debrag12

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3053060/Dr-Oz-fights-America-s-physician-lashes-critics-says-pocket-GM-food-criticizes-not-medical-anyway.html

Alatariel75

Good lord, the Cheerios girl needs to go read that article because the irony of Dr Oz accusing others of being on corporate pockets would fix her deficiency in a jiffy.

rocknlotsofrolls

I'm seeing him on Today right now talking with Matt Laur. He has so many supporters, that man will not go anywhere.

Liftng4Lis

randomtai

Liftng4Lis

randomtai wrote: »

snort

rjmudlax13

Forget where I read it but there was an article written by a guy who went on his show. He said the producers would ask him what he wanted to talk about and if they didn't like it they would tell him what to say. They basically said "we cater to dumb middle aged stay at home women." Not sure if it's all true but I wouldn't doubt it.

crazyjerseygirl

So, 40% of his critics received money from a GMO company (in the form of grants) and there is a study showing that about 50% of what Oz days is hogwash. Hrm.

Also, I don't think academic freedom extends to idiotcy.

As for GMOs meh. I can't see how they're harmful. Science has goofed in the past, but it tends to be self correcting. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson

SconnieCat

Alatariel75 wrote: »

Good lord, the Cheerios girl needs to go read that article because the irony of Dr Oz accusing others of being on corporate pockets would fix her deficiency in a jiffy.

I forgot about her. Awwww memories.

janejellyroll

crazyjerseygirl wrote: »

So, 40% of his critics received money from a GMO company (in the form of grants) and there is a study showing that about 50% of what Oz days is hogwash. Hrm.

Also, I don't think academic freedom extends to idiotcy.

As for GMOs meh. I can't see how they're harmful. Science has goofed in the past, but it tends to be self correcting. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson

I am not a fan of Dr. Oz, but if we are going to say that academic freedom doesn't extend to idiocy, who is determining idiocy?

This is a clear-cut case of a money-hungry man with low principles making a cash grab and embarrassing his institution. But if Columbia fires him for the views he advocates outside of the classroom, will the next case be so clear-cut?

crazyjerseygirl

janejellyroll wrote: »

crazyjerseygirl wrote: »

So, 40% of his critics received money from a GMO company (in the form of grants) and there is a study showing that about 50% of what Oz days is hogwash. Hrm.

Also, I don't think academic freedom extends to idiotcy.

As for GMOs meh. I can't see how they're harmful. Science has goofed in the past, but it tends to be self correcting. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson

I am not a fan of Dr. Oz, but if we are going to say that academic freedom doesn't extend to idiocy, who is determining idiocy?

This is a clear-cut case of a money-hungry man with low principles making a cash grab and embarrassing his institution. But if Columbia fires him for the views he advocates outside of the classroom, will the next case be so clear-cut?

My opinion (I'm not an academic so I've no idea how this actually works) is that if you are saying things that directly contrast with your field (magic green coffee!) and have absolutely nothing to back it up, that constitutes idiocy.

If Dr. Oz had a home improvement show where he gave *kitten* advice I'd be amused but could care less. If he pushed a diet supplement and showed that there's science behind it, even if the science if flawed, that's fine. That's just part of science.
What he is doing though isn't academic at all. He admitted to lying, he admitted to having no science to back up his claims. This is more akin to when biology professors get in trouble for teaching creationism.

I get that my model doesn't really do that well for the liberal arts (is there evidence that Marlow is better than Shakespeare?) but it's just that, a model and an opinion. There's a reason I don't work in academia!

....actually that reason is money. Yeah, no lofty standards here!

janejellyroll

crazyjerseygirl wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

crazyjerseygirl wrote: »

So, 40% of his critics received money from a GMO company (in the form of grants) and there is a study showing that about 50% of what Oz days is hogwash. Hrm.

Also, I don't think academic freedom extends to idiotcy.

As for GMOs meh. I can't see how they're harmful. Science has goofed in the past, but it tends to be self correcting. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson

I am not a fan of Dr. Oz, but if we are going to say that academic freedom doesn't extend to idiocy, who is determining idiocy?

This is a clear-cut case of a money-hungry man with low principles making a cash grab and embarrassing his institution. But if Columbia fires him for the views he advocates outside of the classroom, will the next case be so clear-cut?

My opinion (I'm not an academic so I've no idea how this actually works) is that if you are saying things that directly contrast with your field (magic green coffee!) and have absolutely nothing to back it up, that constitutes idiocy.

If Dr. Oz had a home improvement show where he gave *kitten* advice I'd be amused but could care less. If he pushed a diet supplement and showed that there's science behind it, even if the science if flawed, that's fine. That's just part of science.
What he is doing though isn't academic at all. He admitted to lying, he admitted to having no science to back up his claims. This is more akin to when biology professors get in trouble for teaching creationism.

I get that my model doesn't really do that well for the liberal arts (is there evidence that Marlow is better than Shakespeare?) but it's just that, a model and an opinion. There's a reason I don't work in academia!

....actually that reason is money. Yeah, no lofty standards here!

But one of the main reasons that academic freedom exists is so that academics CAN say stuff that directly contradicts current thinking in their field. Dr. Oz aside, this is a good thing. Imagine if we said that a prominent economist could talk about home improvement, but he couldn't address the structure of capitalism (even if his analysis was deeply flawed) if it went against current economic thinking. Or if we said a historian could talk about home improvement, but she couldn't address the history of race relations in America if she was going to say the "wrong" thing. I realize you say the liberal arts are different (and they are, to an extent), but academic freedom gives academics the ability to address unpopular points of view -- including those that are wrong.

I don't know of any cases where a biology professor has gotten into trouble for teaching creationism. Is there a particular case that you're thinking of?

crazyjerseygirl

janejellyroll wrote: »

crazyjerseygirl wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

crazyjerseygirl wrote: »

So, 40% of his critics received money from a GMO company (in the form of grants) and there is a study showing that about 50% of what Oz days is hogwash. Hrm.

Also, I don't think academic freedom extends to idiotcy.

As for GMOs meh. I can't see how they're harmful. Science has goofed in the past, but it tends to be self correcting. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson

I am not a fan of Dr. Oz, but if we are going to say that academic freedom doesn't extend to idiocy, who is determining idiocy?

This is a clear-cut case of a money-hungry man with low principles making a cash grab and embarrassing his institution. But if Columbia fires him for the views he advocates outside of the classroom, will the next case be so clear-cut?

My opinion (I'm not an academic so I've no idea how this actually works) is that if you are saying things that directly contrast with your field (magic green coffee!) and have absolutely nothing to back it up, that constitutes idiocy.

If Dr. Oz had a home improvement show where he gave *kitten* advice I'd be amused but could care less. If he pushed a diet supplement and showed that there's science behind it, even if the science if flawed, that's fine. That's just part of science.
What he is doing though isn't academic at all. He admitted to lying, he admitted to having no science to back up his claims. This is more akin to when biology professors get in trouble for teaching creationism.

I get that my model doesn't really do that well for the liberal arts (is there evidence that Marlow is better than Shakespeare?) but it's just that, a model and an opinion. There's a reason I don't work in academia!

....actually that reason is money. Yeah, no lofty standards here!

But one of the main reasons that academic freedom exists is so that academics CAN say stuff that directly contradicts current thinking in their field. Dr. Oz aside, this is a good thing. Imagine if we said that a prominent economist could talk about home improvement, but he couldn't address the structure of capitalism (even if his analysis was deeply flawed) if it went against current economic thinking. Or if we said a historian could talk about home improvement, but she couldn't address the history of race relations in America if she was going to say the "wrong" thing. I realize you say the liberal arts are different (and they are, to an extent), but academic freedom gives academics the ability to address unpopular points of view -- including those that are wrong.

I don't know of any cases where a biology professor has gotten into trouble for teaching creationism. Is there a particular case that you're thinking of?

I was thinking of Behe. He got in trouble, but like Oz wasn't fired. His university pretty much publicly denounced his views which is a bit more than Columbia did.

I will say, I'm fine with contrary ascertations, science thrives on that. What I'm not ok with is contrary ascertations with absolutely nothing backing it up. I mean Jeeze, run a double blind test or something, anything!
He is saying these things for one of two reasons. He is dishonest, or he has the feels about it. I can almost forgive the feels (though I'd still like some backup) But I don't see why anyone who is dishonest gets to keep their job.

ETA: and yes, I admit, this rant is mostly based on me having the feels about this sort of thing, and I'm quite rangy today. Sorry bout that

janejellyroll

crazyjerseygirl wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

crazyjerseygirl wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

crazyjerseygirl wrote: »

So, 40% of his critics received money from a GMO company (in the form of grants) and there is a study showing that about 50% of what Oz days is hogwash. Hrm.

Also, I don't think academic freedom extends to idiotcy.

As for GMOs meh. I can't see how they're harmful. Science has goofed in the past, but it tends to be self correcting. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson

I am not a fan of Dr. Oz, but if we are going to say that academic freedom doesn't extend to idiocy, who is determining idiocy?

This is a clear-cut case of a money-hungry man with low principles making a cash grab and embarrassing his institution. But if Columbia fires him for the views he advocates outside of the classroom, will the next case be so clear-cut?

My opinion (I'm not an academic so I've no idea how this actually works) is that if you are saying things that directly contrast with your field (magic green coffee!) and have absolutely nothing to back it up, that constitutes idiocy.

If Dr. Oz had a home improvement show where he gave *kitten* advice I'd be amused but could care less. If he pushed a diet supplement and showed that there's science behind it, even if the science if flawed, that's fine. That's just part of science.
What he is doing though isn't academic at all. He admitted to lying, he admitted to having no science to back up his claims. This is more akin to when biology professors get in trouble for teaching creationism.

I get that my model doesn't really do that well for the liberal arts (is there evidence that Marlow is better than Shakespeare?) but it's just that, a model and an opinion. There's a reason I don't work in academia!

....actually that reason is money. Yeah, no lofty standards here!

But one of the main reasons that academic freedom exists is so that academics CAN say stuff that directly contradicts current thinking in their field. Dr. Oz aside, this is a good thing. Imagine if we said that a prominent economist could talk about home improvement, but he couldn't address the structure of capitalism (even if his analysis was deeply flawed) if it went against current economic thinking. Or if we said a historian could talk about home improvement, but she couldn't address the history of race relations in America if she was going to say the "wrong" thing. I realize you say the liberal arts are different (and they are, to an extent), but academic freedom gives academics the ability to address unpopular points of view -- including those that are wrong.

I don't know of any cases where a biology professor has gotten into trouble for teaching creationism. Is there a particular case that you're thinking of?

I was thinking of Behe. He got in trouble, but like Oz wasn't fired. His university pretty much publicly denounced his views which is a bit more than Columbia did.

I will say, I'm fine with contrary ascertations, science thrives on that. What I'm not ok with is contrary ascertations with absolutely nothing backing it up. I mean Jeeze, run a double blind test or something, anything!
He is saying these things for one of two reasons. He is dishonest, or he has the feels about it. I can almost forgive the feels (though I'd still like some backup) But I don't see why anyone who is dishonest gets to keep their job.

ETA: and yes, I admit, this rant is mostly based on me having the feels about this sort of thing, and I'm quite rangy today. Sorry bout that

The Behe case is interesting, thanks for pointing me to it. It looks like he still has his job and I look forward to reading more about it.

I wouldn't be opposed to Columbia taking a stronger stand against Oz's snake oil, I just don't think he should be fired or punished for his speech. Something like the declaimer that Lehigh University put on their website about Behe would be awesome. I feel weird even defending him (or more accurately, I guess, defending academic freedom even when he is involved). I think he's the worst kind of bottom feeder.

You don't have anything to apologize for, by the way. I love debate and this has been very interesting.

crazyjerseygirl

Heh, thanks! And for the record I totally get that you are not defending Oz. I think I would have stopped chatting long ago if I thought that!

I think you are right in the end though. It is ethically tricky to have two standards for academic freedom, and it's not as if he is teaching students absolute rubbish, but this is what it's about right? Academic freedom is easy until you get yourself a dolt!

So I concur, I would like to see the Columbia disclaimer, and who knows, that might just happen. But you're right, firing an academic for saying something they don't agree with is a very slippery slope that I'd rather not slide down. It benefits the Heros as much as the quacks.

ncboiler89

crazyjerseygirl wrote: »

. But you're right, firing an academic for saying something they don't agree with is a very slippery slope that I'd rather not slide down. It benefits the Heros as much as the quacks.

You're right. But he is quickly becoming the face of Columbia for all the wrong reasons so that could be reason to fire him although I think there is a near zero probability of that happening.

DaneanP

I'd just like to point out that free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences of that speech. Oz tries to claim his free speech rights are being violated but as he is not being thrown in jail for speaking out or being silenced by the government, this is not a free speech issue.

tinascar2015

I think The Daily Show's recent segment on the anti-science idiocy of the anti-GMO movement pretty much settles the argument. It was so refreshing to see. I've been defending GM,foods from the beginning and if I lost one pound for every time some ignorant hysterical called me a "Monsanto shill", I'd be trying to gain weight, not lose it.

snowflakesav

I saw him on the today show. Matt asked him if he had any regrets and he said he regretted any indication that a particular food or substance could influence metabolism.

A little late for that?