Monthly archive for October2014 - page 4

…about Empiricism.

Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626), sometimes referred to as the Father of Empiricism.

Hat Tip: Tragedy Series

If someone told you that simply wearing a certain…umm…undergarment for 8 hours a day, 7 days a week for 28 days would shrink your hips and thighs reduce cellulite, would you believe it?  Some people would or those undergarments would not be for sale.  And they are for sale.

The Revolutionary I-Pants, infused with micro-encapsulated “active ingredients”:  caffeine, retinol, ceramides. vitamin E, fatty acids and Aloe Vera are available at various outlets.  However, Norm Thompson Outfitters and Wacoal America have been enjoined from making weight loss claims by the FTC.  I haven’t read through the FTC complaint, but I’m sure their reasoning was something along the lines of the weight loss claims being “utter nonsense”.  Or perhaps they used another more colorful euphemism for male bovine digestive excretion.

The purpose of this post isn’t to bash stupid products sold with ridiculous and obviously false marketing claims.  It’s more about wondering why those ridiculous and obviously false marketing claims work.  I’m pretty sure everyone knows that wearing caffeinated underpants will not shrink your butt.  But some people are willing to believe it.  Why is that?  Is it simply a case of “desperate times call for desperate measures”?  I would wager that there are some I-Pant owners whose posterior girth would not warrant that degree of desperation.

What started my mind wandering down this road (besides coming across the article about I-Pants) were some thoughts I was having about Empiricism, which is a theory that knowledge can only come from sensory experience or evidence.  Something else altogether got me thinking about Empiricism.  But I digress.  Certain companies may (and do) use ridiculous and false marketing claims to sell bad products because they know it works.  They have evidence of it.  They have reason to believe it.  Consumers, on the other hand, have no reason to believe the marketing claims.  They’ve seen no evidence.  They have only a desire to believe the claims.  They have reason to suspend their disbelief – no – they have desire to suspend their disbelief.  Had they reason, their disbelief woud remain intact.

We’re willing to believe.  We want to believe.  So there it is (again) – desire.  Getting us into trouble.  Making us think that purchasing the Revolutionary I-Pant is a good idea.  Or taking us down some similar crooked path.  While cold reason quietly takes a back seat awaiting the empirical data and the opportunity to say (again) Told You So!

If we want something bad enough, we’re willing to believe almost anything.  Does believing it make it true?  I dunno.  I’m still waitin’ on the data…

I swiped the headline from within the story.  Couldn’t resist.  The story via Yahoo News is from Australia: School Bans Cartwheels.  Seems that the school principal initiated the rule because, you know, “someone could get hurt”.  Huh.  I had such high hope for the Ozzies.  In their defense, everyone except the principal at fault seems to think this is a bad idea, including her superiors at the Education Ministry or whatever they call it.

A few months ago I wrote about a study done in New Zealand where the elimination of such playground “rules” did not result in more injuries.  Not only that, but there was a decrease in bullying and the overall discipline at the school improved.   After that, I was hopeful that we might reverse the trend to childproof childhood.  Guess I was wrong.