In starting to write a post criticising this BBC story for claiming the OED “officially” defines the word detox in a certain way, I see that in the last few hours this offending adverb has already been removed (the story still appears on Google News with it included). It seems somebody beat me to it.
The reason for this single word officially being such a problem is, there’s nothing “official” about what the OED does: if the usage of the word detox has indeed changed to mean something more general than its current definition, then this would have to be reflected in the word’s entry next time it is revised, whether an individual lexicographer likes the usage or not. That’s why it’s considered a historical, rather than prescriptive, dictionary.
That dictionaries somehow act as arbiters for the meanings and uses of words is one of the most common misconceptions of how dictionaries work. This view is exemplified in Sarah Silverman’s Oxford English Dictionary Word Induction Ceremony, and nicely summarized by Ben Zimmer at the Language Log.
Incidentally, the BBC’s summary of the OED definition of the word (“the removal of toxic substances or qualities”) doesn’t seem to bear much resemblance to the actual entry as it currently stands (“colloq. abbrev. of DETOXIFICATION; also, a detoxification centre”). Maybe their next correction will be to put the name of the dictionary they actually used?
Despite this, it’s nice to see a story critical of health nonsense get some coverage for a change, thanks to the PR work of the charitable organization Sense about Science, who specialize in this type of debunking. In addition, the discussion around this story has led to a bonus bit of humiliation for the company Detox in a Box, as documented (and created) by Ben Goldacre. Who knows, maybe there will be less poorly researched pseudoscientific nonsense in the media from now on? Oh, hang on…
I’ve recently finished both Suckers by Rose Shapiro and Flat Earth by Christine Garwood, two books on alternative medicine and (unsurprisingly) the rejection of a spherical earth respectively. It’s interesting to compare them both: both sets of beliefs have been roundly rejected by science, and they both have long histories spanning thousands of years, but only alternative medicine now supports an industry worth billions of pounds, has gained the patronage of a future king and receives taxpayers money in order to fund its premises.
But if both flat earth theory and alternative medicine have been discarded by science, why is there this disparity between their public popularity? Nobody is going to die from insisting that the world is not a globe and that Australia can’t exist (with the exception of astronauts or Australians), which is not the case for a system of beliefs which attempts to cure cancer by recommending doing more than eating lots of fruit. As such, surely it is the beliefs in a flat earth which are more benign, and which as such should be tolerated in society?
But it’s the other way around: it seems that many people will choose to ignore science at the very moment that it becomes a matter of life and death for them to do so. And as such, writers like Shapiro may be doomed in their attempt to wean people of the irrational. It seems rationality is the last thing that people want when they want something (anything!) to make themselves feel healthy: their desire for something to be true outweighs any outside influence from science. Opposing scientific orthodoxy in the case of a flat earth doesn’t promise to cure all your ills without any pain (apart from to your wallet), so why rebel against the status quo?
Which might explain why some (in)famous flat-earthers, such as the Victorian Parallax, turned to medical quackery later in their career: perhaps they found the crowds that little bit more willing to believe in their theories, and so part with their cash.
Thanks to Suckers by Rose Shapiro, I have just learnt of the existence of ear candling as an alternative therapy. It quite literally consists of putting a lit candle into somebody’s ear in the hope that it will suck out toxins and wax. Ye Gods, to think I once considered homeopathy stupid!