Scientism and the Misuse of Science in the Cosmetics World

As the illustration above may hint at, we shall be ranting just a bit today.

Michelle at Lab Muffin wrote a blog post about scientism in the beauty industry last Spring that I have been meaning to add my thoughts to for, well, close to a year now.

She made a lot of valid points that rang true. As the year has passed, the 'ringing' seems to keep getting increasingly louder.

Scientism is definitely a thing in the beauty world.

What the Heck is Scientism

Scientism can be interpreted as 'science applied in excess’. And contrary to what you might think, 'scientism' isn't even close to being a new term. Through the years, there have been lots of descriptions of what scientism is. Here are a few.

"Scientism ... employs the prestige of science for disguise and protection."

A.H. Hobbs (1953)

Scientism is "the aping of what is widely mistaken for the method of science".

Karl Popper (1979)

"Scientism is a form of pseudo science that is a bit trickier to spot, because it likes science. No – it loves science. Too much. Science wants to try being friends first, but scientism has ordered their wedding cake and named their 5 grandkids already."

Michelle Wong, Lab Muffin (2019)


In short, scientism is using (or one might say misusing) science to lend credibility to oneself and one's purpose - whatever that may be. 

(Mis)using Science to Sell Beauty Products is Nothing New

Since last century (and probably earlier), it has been standard practice to see advertisements for personal care products with an actor/model posing as a scientist/doctor/dentist in a lab coat to lend an air of credibility to the product.

It is typically something along these lines.


EXAMPLE 1

"Our cream is documented by clinical studies and scientific testing to smooth away wrinkles!"

Really?

On close inspection (reading the fine print), the study – more often than not – includes 12 or less volunteers, takes place over a period of 2 weeks (or less), is funded by the manufacturer and test results consist entirely of impressions from testers who replied 'their face seemed smoother'.

But.

Everything was done in a scientific manner.


EXAMPLE 2

"This powerful anti-aging cream features extract of fabuloso flowers!"

Really?

Even though they cheerfully document the powerful properties of fabuloso flowers, on closer inspection (checking the ingredients label), it is clear the star ingredient extract has been added at under 1% and probably as a tip-in (under 0.05%).

But.

The documentation about the properties of the star ingredient is correct and their advertising claims are within the law.

I could go on, but I am sure you get the picture.

As distasteful as you might find the practice of (mis)using science for the sole purpose of selling face cream, it has been common practice in the beauty industry for decades.

And it's understandable that – after years of seeing this practice repeated unwaveringly – consumers grow increasingly skeptical of anything the (traditional) beauty industry has to say.

Contrary to What We Might Have Expected, The Green Beauty Movement Hasn't Helped

One would have imagined the rise of the green beauty movement would (naturally) change these things for the better, but in some respects, quite the opposite has happened.

An army of 'savvy' ingredients label readers and consumers demanding 'safe skincare' has evolved over recent years – fueled by special interest groups who have adopted the exact same (equally distasteful) practices.

They too, are 'aping what is widely mistaken for the method of science' by

• Cherry-picking facts to create their own version of the truth
• Vilifying safe and approved ingredients
• Creating 'scientific' ingredients databases that mislead and misinform
• Bashing almost anything petrochemical

Sigh.

My Facts Are Bigger than Yours

Using science as a weapon to bash each other with gets everyone absolutely nowhere.

Let's try to look at the bigger picture here.

Science looks at evidence but at the same time CONTINUES TO QUESTION, STUDY and TEST. And when it does question something, IT DOES SO WITH AN OPEN MIND.

Note these important keywords:  AN OPEN MIND

So.

Dear Petrochemical Fans

STOP (mis)using science to mock greenies. Realize that you are in all likelihood more of a greenie than you want to admit. Almost every industry-processed extract and active with you happily add to your cosmetics is PLANT BASED. Plants and their constituents are the very basis for modern medicine. Check out BOTANICAL SCIENCE if you don't believe me. It's science too!

Dear Green Beauty Fans

STOP bashing perfectly safe (petrochemical) ingredients! Refer to trustworthy sources. And for goodness sakes, lose the term CHEMICAL FREE. It is physically impossible to make anything chemical free, so this term means absolutely nothing! Plants are full of useful and powerful chemicals - and that's exactly what makes them amazing.


And finally:

Dear Everybody 

STOP blindly accepting someone's word because they claim to be 'science-based'.

Look closer.
Ask questions.
Check facts.
Draw your own conclusions.

In my experience, the 'scientism-ists' are shouting so loudly and displaying their disdain and arrogance so prominently because they don't want others to find out THEY AREN'T 'ALL THAT'.

Don't be bullied into believing someone simply because they are doing the scientism dance.

Now, go out there and be nice to each other and show a little MUTUAL RESPECT - regardless of your cosmetics ingredients preferences.

End of rant.

Thanks for reading.

References and Links

Find Michelle / Lab Muffin's original post about Scientism here. 

A.H. Hobbs, Social Problems and Scientism, (Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Press, 1953), p. 17.

Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge, an Evolutionary Approach

Tip-ins Colins Beauty Pages

Tip-ins (this blog)

Why Vetting Cosmetics Ingredients is a Bad Idea (this blog)

Thanks to Duncan Abbott at Formulators Kitchen for teaching me the expression 'My facts are bigger than yours' (which gets me giggling every time)