In article <b86268d4.0202111323.1a3c42ea at posting.google.com>,
jonesmat at physiology.wisc.edu (Matt Jones) wrote:
> Right. Like Linus Pauling must be right about how everyone should live
> on huge diets of vitamins, and various non-neuroscientist Nobel
> laureates must therefore be right in their theories of brain function
> (and concsciousness, no less). Seeing as how the brain/mind is our
> "last frontier", everybody wants to claim part of the turf, I guess.
>
I get your point that inferred or implied symbols of expertise, when out
of field, is marketing via implication and is often totally false. It
really gets sticky when a famous person is used as the symbol and they
are dead. Thus, how could we know what they think today about any
product that came out after they died? But Linus Pauling might not be
your best example.
Linus Pauling DID receive a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his research
in natural levels of ascorbic acid found in various animals which led
to his suggestion that mega-doses of Vitamin C could be helpful -
especially in environments and diets that reduced natural levels via
caffiene, nicotene, stress, etc.
His claim was the FDA's minimum suggested levels were referenced to a
baseline that kept people from getting scurvy and that more, on average,
was better. He lived to > 90 years of age and looked pretty good.
An important distinction is that Pauling himself made the Vitamin C
claims. They have been echoed by the many that sell Vitamin C - but he
actually said it and proved it. Folks selling memory enhancement drugs 'n
tricks that have Einstein's or my picture in their ads (just kidding)
are surfing symbolists - suggesting at a subliminal level that a
performance correlation exists when none is yet proven.