It’s a matter of priorities. And it’s nothing new, or corpse medicine, lead-based face creams and removing ribs to achieve a wasp-like waist would never have survived past a few individuals.

“I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV.” That’s the problem. Anyone can dress up as a scientist, play the part, and tell you anything. And if it’s on TV, well, it must be true, no?

A lot of people do not enjoy reading and would rather someone else did and then told them what they learned. Preferably someone they know. If they see someone regularly on the tube, they think they know them and will believe what is said by them. Advertisers know this. That’s why all the celebrity endorsements.

We need another Carl Sagan. A scientist willing to get out in the open regularly and make their name familiar. With that familiarity will come credibility, deserved or not. It is how the system works, and science needs to get on board and work the system.

As to the public “apathy” about science, it’s actually more of a credibility gap, and it mainly applies to very big, complicated issues that can be influenced by political or religious factors. It’s not hard for someone with no interest in science to imagine how a scientist could determine, say, which motor oil lasts longest. That’s a concrete test that people can at least vaguely picture for themselves, and they’re happy to accept the data when making decisions. It’s much tougher for a person to develop a mental image of climate modeling, or of the type of research that allows us to know what animal ate what plant a million years ago. The lack of understanding leaves plenty of room for doubt and influence from competing sources of info.

Part of your failure in this analysis may be to assume that it is “the same public” without recognizing that these products are perhaps being targeted toward those persons who are not apathetic toward science.

But I think that more likely there is a major difference between being “engaged in science” and “respecting the authority of the lab coat”. I think that most people do the latter and do not do the former, but that scientists tend to confuse the two.

Although Science holds authority over knowledge in our society, it is simply one knowledge authority. For society, Scientific knowledge is simply one of many tools and sources of authority that one can rely on. If Science supports your position, you invoke it. If it does not, you reject it and utilize an alternative knowledge authority (religion, “common sense”, tradition).

Great subject.

I have been examining this phenomena of using science as a marketing ploy but in a different setting – that of amateur paranormal investigation groups. They use both jargon and equipment as symbols of science. It works. The public thinks they are credible researchers.

Philosopher Susan Haack says “scientific” is used honorifically as “an all-purpose term of epistemic praise meaning ‘strong, reliable, good’”. The “honorific usage” of science is common in our society and “promotes inappropriate mimicry,” and an “uncritical attitude” towards science.

The manner, language and procedure of science are imitated by others in order to appear complicated and credible. The public finds cues that suggest a source is knowledgeable and the message is reliable. Sciencey-ness suggests sophistication and expertise.

Advertisers appeal to these consumer heuristics by use of scientific jargon and images. Apparently, this sciencey magic stamp was used by charlatans back in the 20th century to sell products. So, it’s not new and still works.

I recommend Science Talk by Daniel Patrick Thurs and Conjuring Science by Christopher Toumey as good reads on this topic.