It's not that there isn't a real problem with obesity. Of course there is. There's a lot of it about. Indeed, I often wonder to myself how come the Archdruidical hi-viz has shrunk, once again, in the night.
But the "science" is so bad. Or, more likely, the reporting of the science is bad.
Let's start with Charlene Shoneye, "obesity dietician" who said she wasn't surprised because
"Twenty years ago, for example, most crisps used to come in packs that were 20g. Now they are 30g, 50g or even 60g, and we are still eating the whole pack."
She's probably right. But that doesn't explain why the sizes of Last Suppers grew most between 1500 and 1900 does it? There's not only no causality, that's not even correlation. That's like saying we know Global Warming is happening today because all the ice started melting after the last Ice Age.
Now let's consider Professor Brian Wansink, whose very name sent me to many anagram sites to work out if this is just an early April Fool. Apparently he and his colleagues at Cornell University - which I believe, unlike Cambridge, is a real one - studied 52 paintings and worked out the sizes of the feast based on such empirical evidence as "the assumption that the width of an average loaf of bread from the time should be twice that of the average disciple's head".
Is that real science? Is that a universal constant, comparable to Boltzmann's? Will the Wansink constant (which, conveniently, is precisely 2) go down in the textbooks of the future? It remains to be seen. But when all is said and done, is measuring the size of disciples' heads and comparing them to loaves of bread really something for a grown team of researchers to be doing?
To be fair to Craig Wansink, Prof Brian's theologian brother, he lets us into the good news that there's probably no theological reason why the portions are getting bigger. But since he's a theology professor, that just tells us he's wasted the last three years. Still, as the prophets Rice and Lloyd-Webber told us, "Any Grant Will Do".
Classic stuff. You're quite right that this has absolutely nothing to do with modern obesity. However, Mouse does wonder if there is something important hidden deep down in there.
ReplyDeletePerhaps a point that could be salvaged from this waste of academic resources, is the fact that the artists have subconsciously put their own expectations into the paintings.
The classic version of this is to paint Jesus as if he was a white western European. This research shows that these deep assumptions and prejudices, which come from our own culture, go into every aspect of how we look back at the historical Jesus and gospel stories.
Or am I clutching at straws there?
Being a mouse I'd expect you to be sleeping on them rather than clutching at them?
ReplyDeleteBut yes, we project ourselves onto Jesus the whole time. You could be negative and call it cultural imperialism. Or positive and call it inculturation?
That is twice recently you have cast aspersions about the folk from the banks of the Cam, which seems odd given this http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/datablog/2009/oct/08/top-100-universities-world - or perhaps it is just envy :)
ReplyDeleteFr Alan - how could I possibly cast aspersions on the Educational establishment that gave us Kim Philby, Oliver Cromwell, Nick Griffin and Aleister Crowley?
ReplyDeleteAnd anyway, I was quite nice about Cranmer the other day.
That painting is not going to please the Guinea Pig Folk of Stewartby!
ReplyDeleteIs it just me or are edible guinea pigs getting larger? I blame the use of Guinea Pig Growth Hormone.
ReplyDeleteLooks more like a large lizard to me. Or perhaps a fat mongoose. But that may be because I have them in my garden (and occasionally in the house).
ReplyDeleteHolger, you know it's a guinea pig. They're very tasty and the local dish in Peru. I believe this is called "inculturation". Although those actually at the Last Supper might have called a guinea pig "unclean".
ReplyDelete